Minotaur Media Tracking______
The BBC and “Europe” General Election survey May 14 - June 7, 2001
An examination of the treatment of the issue of “Europe” in the main BBC national news and current affairs programmes during the General Election campaign based on the full transcripts of what was broadcast.
Conducted by Minotaur Media Tracking for Global Britain
Contact: David Keighley, Minotaur Media Tracking, Tel: 01273 734852, Email: [email protected]
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 1 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
The BBC and “Europe” General Election survey May 14- June 7, 2001 Conducted by Minotaur Media Tracking for Global Britain
Contents
Summary …………………………………………………… 3 Introduction………………………………………………… 6 Andrew Marr’s election ……………………………….….. 11 Jeremy Paxman’s election…..…………………………….. 29 Coverage on Today ……………………………………….. 37 Coverage on PM……………………………………………. 57 Coverage of withdrawal/UKIP…………………………….. 73 Missing MPs…………………………………………………. 81 Daily log and notes………………………………………….. 83
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 2 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Summary The survey is based on the comprehensive monitoring and transcribing of more than 250 programme items. The analysis is divided into several key areas: first the coverage of Andrew Marr, the most high profile BBC political editor in the BBC’s history, and Jeremy Paxman, its most important television interviewer, responsible for conducting the biggest encounters with the party leaders. It then moves to examination of the main two radio programmes, Today and PM, and to consideration of withdrawal, an issue not on the agenda of the main political parties. Finally, there is a look at the handling of what was said to be the issue of “missing MPs” – those such as the Tory Europhiles who had, according to correspondents, expediently absented themselves from the main campaigning. At the end of the survey is a daily log and analysis of all the coverage, the core study on which the front-end conclusions are based.
This section contains broad summaries of the main analyses.
Introduction: The BBC output looked at European issues mainly through a paradigm forged out of assumed problems among the Tory party. The paradigm was based on a complex chain of editorial judgements, some of which were locked in the past. Analysis by the BBC’s staff did not properly put into perspective or explain the real current scale of Conservative problems over Europe, making it difficult for audiences to judge for themselves the true import of Europe-related issues. There was an editorial emphasis on Tory splits on Europe, completely out of proportion to the scale of the problem, and at the expense of the consideration of other issues on the European agenda .The editorial treatment of the Euro-sceptic case was too closely linked with Tories and Tory splits - the result being that the real substance of the issues involved was not properly explored, except from the perspective of those splits. There were relatively few attempts to pin Labour down on its approach to Europe, or to explore potential contradictions in its stance, for example over the speed of joining the Euro. . The main themes explored about the future of Europe were the process of joining the Single Currency, aspects of expansion of the EU as seen through a speech by Lionel Jospin, and tax harmonisation. The differences that would have resulted in the relationship with Europe had the Tories won – such as the re- negotiation of treaties and wider reform of the institutions – were touched upon only lightly.
Andrew Marr: Andrew Marr introduced a new style of high-profile impressionistic political reporting to the coverage of a general election. His daily reports were the pivotal focus of the BBC’s most important news programme in terms of audience reach, the BBC1 Ten O’Clock News, and also featured periodically in other programmes. The finding of this report is that, in his approach to European-related issues, in line with overall BBC coverage, Mr Marr paid excessive attention to Conservative splits, did not analyse Labour policies to Europe with the same attention to detail, and failed to give viewers adequate guidance about the real scale of the problems facing the Tories. In addition, he considered withdrawal only as a potential threat to Tory unity, and as something that the “establishment in this country” did not want. There is no suggestion here that Andrew Marr deliberately or consciously set out to be biased on the issue of Europe. The problem with his reports – with their high profile and strong impact – was that editorially, it was difficult to keep track on their overall cumulative content in terms of balance and fairness. The detailed analysis in this report is that in one important area, where line-by-line and day-by-day analysis has been mounted, there were shortcomings.
Jeremy Paxman: The analysis has also revealed inconsistencies in Mr Paxman’s approach. At the expense of fairness, he was more much personal in his framing of questions put to Mr Hague than he was to Mr Blair. In his treatment of European issues, he appeared stuck in one primary groove of questioning: whether the Tory commitment to the pound was for longer than one Parliament. Of course, this was an important issue, and there is no suggestion here that it was not. But Mr Paxman’s strong focus on this one line led to a disproportionate emphasis on discord in the Tory party, along well-worn paths. By contrast, he made no effort to explore (with either Labour or Conservatives) wider issues, also at play in the election, such as the pace of integration, which could have illuminated the differences of approach, and discords within, both parties. Over the course of the campaign as a whole, the grilling of Mr Cook illustrated that Mr Paxman was just as willing to subject a Labour spokesman to a tough time as he was the Conservatives with Andrew Lansley and Tim Collins. The Cook encounter illustrated vividly Labour’s reluctance to stray from agreed party lines. But it was disappointing that Mr Cook was led into new areas of policy discussion, whereas Mr Hague, Mr
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 3 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Collins and Mr Lansley were all essentially asked the same thing. On the topic of withdrawal, dealt with by the opening feature about the Paul Sykes letter, and through the interview with Nigel Farage, the treatment by Mr Paxman was distinctly out of kilter. The expedient use of Matthew Taylor (instead of an official Labour spokesman), combined with Mr Paxman’s mild approach to his interview questions, meant that the extent of Euro-scepticism within the Labour party was somewhat glossed over, whereas that in the Tory party was not. And the short interview with Mr Farage suggested that the only issue of relevance to the election as far as UKIP was concerned was whether it took votes from the Tories. That was an important consideration but not the sole one.
Today: The overall impression conveyed by Today’s coverage of the election was that the Tory party was campaigning hardest on an issue that might explode at any time because of increased rumblings of discontent. As elsewhere, no precise indication was given of the scale of these problems, though there was concerted effort to speak to dissidents such as Roger Gale and Sir Peter Tapsell, on the Euro- sceptic wing, to Stephen Dorrell, Kenneth Clarke and others from the Europhiles, and from those who decided to leave the Conservative party over their stance over the Euro, such as John Leigh. By contrast with Labour, there were a few tough questions in important areas such as the ceding of sovereignty and progress over the Euro.. Perhaps the judgement was that such questioning would have drawn a blank, and that Labour was being pushed in other areas of policy. If so, the assumption led to an imbalance in coverage, and Labour’s problems over Europe – which extended to several areas, including the timing over the referendum, different levels of enthusiasm for the Euro - were scarcely mentioned or explored. (the exception being Andrew Marr on May 23, though he immediately said that the Conservative problems over withdrawal were more important). Correspondents on Today dealt with several important areas of the respective policies on Europe. There were imbalances in the treatment between Labour and the Conservatives. With the Tory initiatives, the main thrust was to show that there were problems. This approach, of exposing genuine problems in policy, may have been wholly warranted, but if so, brought with it special obligations to be even-handed. With Labour, the aim on occasions appeared to be to say that the policies were acceptable, even to the extent of pointing out that Tony Blair’s stance on the Euro was not an attempt “to bounce” the electorate into it, despite Tory and UKIP claims that this was a danger. In the analysis of points made by Tories, the imbalance was starkly illustrated with the correspondents’ treatment of tax harmonisation. Here Angus Roxborough, immediately after Tim Franks had outlined the Tory claims, said that the EC had responded by describing the allegations as ‘pure tosh’. But he did not properly describe the status of the remarks as an “unofficial quote” (later mentioned by John Humphrys) or give any indication of the weight that could be given to the statement. The Tories later described the interference as completely unwarranted and wrong – but Mr Roxborough’s report did not allude at all to such room for doubt. The overall effect was to throw a large bucket of water over the Tory claims, without the presentation of sufficient countervailing information or comment. By contrast, the Tory evidence about the high cost of joining the Euro (June 1) was not explored in any depth, either in the bulletins, or by Mr Franks when he was asked to comment on the matter, leaving viewers under-informed in an area of claims where there was support for the Tories both from the author of the Chantrey Vellacott report (that was the basis of the Tory claims) and from a Treasury committee. The treatment overall of the UKIP/withdrawal cases on Today was in keeping with the rest of the BBC output: broadly, the withdrawal case was seen as being of minimal importance and on the extreme edges of UK politics. The questions put to interviewees who supported a referendum were on the lines that their position was “preposterous” and that the UKIP views had minuscule support.
PM: There was little examination of Labour policy on Europe, and only one brief mention that the party might have its own divisions on European policy. Labour minister Brian Wilson was let off the hook over claims from Chantrey Vellacott that the cost of joining the Euro would be £36bn. In addition, none of the correspondent reports on the programme mentioned or analysed any aspect of Labour strategy. The overall editorial approach appeared to be that Labour policy on the Euro and the European Union was hardly worth exploring. By contrast, the Conservative stance and claims about Europe were subjected to in-depth scrutiny. There were a total of 11 reports which considered matters ranging from the allegations about the potential for referendum rigging, to the cost of joining the Euro. Of these, four were special PM inquiries aimed at exposing the differences within the party over European policies: the different European agendas being pursued by the candidates; the “deafening silence” of the missing Europhiles: Leon Brittan’s attack on the stance over the Euro and renegotiation of the treaties; and the examination that “the rot had set in” in the campaign on Europe. All were written and structured to draw attention to the problems facing the Conservatives. Of course, the
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 4 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Conservatives led on the Single Currency and spent more time campaigning on it than Labour, and as such, invited more scrutiny. But, by any standards, this was a sustained journalistic examination, and it was important that the reports were properly balanced. It was not always the case. In addition, reporting on the programme by correspondents was not entirely fair or balanced. The problem was that there was no effort to identify the real scale of the Tory divisions – the listener was made strongly aware of Tory discord and disarray, but not of simple facts about the numbers of dissenters involved. Sean Lay, for example, said that Mr Hague’s coalition “should hold” – but there was no effort to say why, to explore the simple arithmetic involved. Andrew Marr mentioned the whisperings behind hands, Norman Smith those in the party who were opposed to Lady Thatcher’s involvement and those who were joining Lord Brittan’s grumblings. But how much support these figures commanded was never specified or even explored. UKIP and withdrawal were considered only very briefly on PM. The treatment did not suggest that either were of importance outside the impact they would have on Conservative party unity and on intentions to vote
UKIP/withdrawal: In dealing with withdrawal, the BBC faced a major dilemma. Opinion polls have consistently indicated that up to 52% of the UK population might vote to leave in a referendum. But none of the main political parties supports leaving – even William Hague, described the suggestion as “daft”. Andrew Marr summarised the issue as “something the establishment very much doesn’t want” – and the editorial approach by all programmes pretty much reflected that analysis. UKIP was afforded only very few interviews, mainly round their manifesto launch. They were given a small amount of space to put across the basic ideas, and their central claim that support was drawn from across the political spectrum. Apart from this, the only consideration of UKIP was tangentially; that support for both it and/or withdrawal was a threat to Tory votes and Tory unity. Examination of this was a central point of several reports, mainly from marginal constituencies where there was a strong UKIP following (or which had attracted strong support for the Referendum Party in 1997). There was virtually no consideration of whether this might be an issue to other parties, or across the political spectrum, the exception being one interview with Austin Mitchell on Newsnight. By contrast, also on Newsnight, the only questioning of UKIP, by Jeremy Paxman of Nigel Farrage, went on the central line that his party threatened to undermine the Tories’ own Euro-sceptic policies by diluting support for them.
An important investigative feature of the election campaign coverage was the search for a number of “missing” MPs, including Oliver Letwin, Keith Vaz and Sean Woodward, all of whom – for different reasons - wanted to avoid interviews. One of these exercises was the explanation for the “deafening silence” (PM May 24) of the Europhiles, focused mainly on the claimed unwillingness of Kenneth Clarke to speak on the European theme. Rather than seeing his silence as loyalty, or a commitment to party unity, there were suggestions that Mr Clarke had been ‘muzzled’ by the Conservative Party leadership (Today, 30th May); that Europhile Conservatives were keeping quiet to avoid recriminations after the predicted Tory defeat; or that the pro-Euro Tories would end their silence “with leadership-blasting artillery” on the day after the election (Today 29th May). The latter claim recurred on numerous occasions, although the predicted fireworks for the day after the election failed to materialise on the scale the reporting suggested. Yet when Mr Clarke finally did break his silence on Europe, it was singularly unspectacular – a speech in a private meeting of local candidates, surreptitiously recorded by the Independent, and – with no actual audio footage seemingly available – reported vicariously by the BBC. Of course, the jury remains out on the extent to which Mr Clarke’s views on Europe divided, or will divide, the party on Europe. The point is that during the election campaign, he did keep his silence. The emphasis on this as an issue was out of proportion to its importance.
Labour: The Labour party policies towards Europe and the Euro were scrutinised only lightly. The impact was to suggest that Euro-sceptic policies per se were more controversial than Labour’s manifesto pledges in this area. The differences, widely-reported in the press, between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair over the Euro, were mentioned only once and the topic was not considered worthy of any sustained investigation or analysis, unlike the problems within the Conservative party. Robin Cook was the only minister pushed hard on any European issue. Generally, the questioning of Labour ministers on Europe-related issues – when they did agree to appear on programmes - was limited and tended to assume that there was less controversy involved in their policies than those of the Conservatives. The scrutiny to which Mr Blair’s main initiative on Europe – his speech advocating closer involvement in Europe – was subjected to less scrutiny than were Tory initiatives, such as the allegations that tax harmonisation was on the European Commission’s agenda.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 5 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Introduction
Minotaur Media Tracking monitored for the duration of the election a campaign, from its official start on May 14 until polling began on June 7, four BBC flagship news and current affairs programmes: Today and PM on Radio 4, the Ten O’Clock News on BBC1 and Newsnight on BBC2. The BBC election rules and guidelines meant that each of these strands had a duty to be balanced and fair on a week-by-week basis. The programmes chosen reached the majority of the UK population during the duration of the campaign, and it would be expected that balance and fairness would be a conspicuous feature, as is required.
The survey focused on the coverage of Europe as an issue during the election campaign. This involved the transcribing of more than 250 programme items, and the consideration line-by-line of the editorial approach. As such, this is one of the most detailed surveys ever conducted of the coverage of issues raised during a General Election. Tabular presentations of the coverage is attached, divided by speakers and topics, by treatment in the bulletins and by BBC correspondents, and by category of story. The central core is an item by item daily analysis of the treatment of the full range of European issues.
Main findings:
1. The BBC output looked at European issues mainly through a paradigm forged out of assumed problems among the Tory party. The paradigm was based on a complex chain of editorial judgements, some of which were locked too much in the past. Analysis by the BBC’s staff did not properly put into perspective or explain the real current scale of Conservative problems over Europe, making it difficult for audiences to judge for themselves the true import of Europe-related issues.
2. There was an editorial emphasis on Tory splits on Europe completely out of proportion to the scale of the problem, and at the expense of the consideration of other issues on the European agenda.
3. The editorial treatment of the Euro-sceptic case was too closely linked with Tories and Tory splits - the result being that the real substance of the issues involved was not properly explored, except from the perspective of those splits
4. There were very few attempts to pin Labour down on its approach to Europe, to examine the range of opinions within its ranks, or to explore potential contradictions in its stance, for example over the speed of joining the Euro. .
5. The main themes explored about the future of Europe were the process of joining the Single Currency, aspects of expansion of the EU as seen through a speech by Lionel Jospin, and tax harmonisation. The differences that would have resulted in the relationship with Europe had the Tories won – such as the re-negotiation of the treaties and wider reform of the institutions – were touched upon only lightly.
“Europe” as a bundle of issues during the general election was explored mainly as something which concerned the Conservative party. This was because a central plank of their election strategy was to focus on their ‘save the pound’ campaign’ – going so far as to say that the election was, in effect, the referendum on the Single Currency. They also drew special attention to, and succeeded in getting to the top of the news agenda, a number of aspects of their worries about the European project, including the threat of tax harmonisation, perhaps going as far as VAT and income tax, the threat to national sovereignty posed by the Treaty of Nice, and the high cost to the UK economy of joining the Euro.
Labour, by contrast, seemed to want to say little new to say about Europe: they stuck largely to the manifesto line on the Euro first adopted in 1997, that a referendum would be held once the Treasury had agreed, and the Cabinet ratified, that five economic tests had been met – and conditions for joining were therefore right. They also stuck to their view that the policy for the future was full engagement in Europe, albeit with a claimed healthy opposition to tax harmonisation and anything that suggested the development of a Superstate. It was noteworthy that throughout the campaign, only one Labour figure went outside these core lines – other than to rebut specific Tory claims. The exception was Tony Blair, who made a speech to say that he believed that engagement in Europe was the true way to express Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 6 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______patriotism, and gave a newspaper interview, in which he said that he believed the referendum on the Euro could be won.
Many commentators argued that, in placing such emphasis on the ‘save the pound’ campaign, Conservative strategists made a number of errors. These included that they inevitably drew attention to, and invited exploration of, the fact that the party contained divergent views on both Europe and the Euro, ranging from those firmly ‘on message’ to those who wanted – at the one extreme – withdrawal from Europe altogether, and at the other, to join the Euro. They also, it was alleged, chose a topic that opinion polls suggested was low down in voters’ lists of priorities. It was also argued that, in saying that the election was a referendum on the pound, a position Mr Hague moved towards roughly half-way through the campaign, the Tories ensured that their stance was even more out of touch with the core concerns of voters, and committed a tactical error which alienated the Europhile sections of the party – leading them to threaten revolt after June 8 – as well as other Euro-sceptic groups such as Business for Sterling.
Against this background, it was the job of public service broadcasters to explore every aspect of the election campaign, and to present to voters the difficulties, as well as the strengths of individual policies.
The key finding of this survey is that the BBC, which is specially charged with achieving editorial fairness and balance during a general election period, appeared to be locked throughout into a false paradigm about the Conservative stance on Europe.
In a nutshell, the BBC editorial approach centrally assumed the Conservative party was split, and that very special efforts needed to be focused on those splits.
Early in the campaign, when discussing the Paul Sykes referendum call – an issue which showed that Euro-scepticism was not simply the province of the Conservative party – this is how Michael Crick explained to Newsnight (May 15) viewers why this was the case:
Well, I think it’s a much bigger problem for the Conservatives than it is for Labour, simply because Europe is the issue that they don’t want to explode in this campaign like it did in 1997, where John Major . . . there were several candidates and Ministers who weren’t toeing the party line on Europe, and John Major had to step in; and on the other hand he didn’t sack them from the front bench – and I think the great fear is that that will happen again. It’s a discipline issue essentially really, for William Hague, especially after the John Townend affair.
That rather circular set of assumptions, largely about the past and which typified the BBC editorial approach , had a number of consequences.
There was a constant and seemingly disproportionate quest to focus on and root out evidence of dissent, typified by the prominence given to the views of the few “dissenters” (from either the Europhile or withdrawal camps) who were prepared to speak out, such as Sir Peter Tapsell (on Today on May 14 and again on May 23), Lord Brittan (PM May 29), Chris Patten (it was rumoured on PM May 30 ) and others. On the other side of the coin, the silence of Europhiles such as Kenneth Clarke and Ian Taylor – perhaps remarkable after their vociferous stance in 1997 and during the 1999 European elections - was seen as distinctly fishy and evidence of further discord, notably in a report on PM (May 24).
This search for “ splits” based on personalities within the party was maybe an attempt to ginger up the coverage of the election as a whole by injecting evidence of rows and discord. But it is hard to see that it revealed anything substantially new about the party or its stance on Europe.
There were frequent mentions editorially that senior party figures were dissatisfied with the party’s focus in the campaign on Europe. But no hard, on the record, evidence appeared which suggested that the party was more or less split at the end of the campaign than at the beginning, despite the constant focus of investigation, commentary and observation.
(Lady Thatcher did say ‘never’ instead of ‘maybe’ to the Euro– but this was hardly new, and hardly, as was claimed in report after report, evidence that the overall compromise adopted by the party had
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 7 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______cracked, or was cracking. Some from the Europhile wing of the party, such as Stephen Dorrell and Lord Brittan and finally (at a private meeting) Kenneth Clarke, said that the campaign had been too focused on Europe. But this was a relatively small part of the party – and hardly the earth-shattering news it was presented to be, as it was all from a predictable minority group within the party).
A more serious charge of the consequences in this quest for illustration of dissent was that it led to the indirect labelling of those in the more Euro-sceptic areas of the party as extremists, and skewed consideration of this area. Despite the contention of Michael Ancram (Today May 16) that the party was a broad church:
…we’ve always said in our party there are people who take specific views on Europe and on the Euro, and we all for instance know that Peter Tapsell and Ken Clarke have had very distinct views on the Euro, they’re not going to change those, but what is important is we have a very clear position ourselves as a party, which was endorsed by the vast majority of our members, and is supported by the overwhelming majority of our candidates. That is the Party’s position, that is what we are campaigning on, and that is to be in Europe but not run by Europe, and to fight to keep the pound at this election.
Their views were seen only as a component of Tory disunity – and therefore problems – and not as an area worthy of consideration in its own right. Lawrence Robertson (Today May 26), for example, a Conservative candidate who believed that withdrawal was an option, was carelessly bracketed (during an introduction to an interview) with the John Townend racism row. Sir Peter Tapsell was asked if his views about German ambitions in Europe were “offensive”. He was able to respond robustly, but the questioning made the allegation – and the impression remained. Another Tory candidate, Roger Gale, was asked if it was “absolutely preposterous” to think in terms of renegotiating the Nice Treaty. Such language was used in no other Europe-related context (for example, in asking any Labour spokesman about his views).
And, most importantly, analysis of more than 250 transcripts – the entire coverage – reveals that there was a major omission of detail. Though BBC correspondents continually referred to or implied Tory splits and dissent, and programmes embarked on special searches to find them, not once, at any point during the campaign, did any of them give an assessment of the dimension of the actual discord among the candidates. One went so far as saying that the “coalition of nevers and not for nows” should hold (Sean Lay, PM May 23); another that he had tried to track down 12 Europhiles without success (Norman Smith PM May 24). But these were exceptions and did not actually pin down anything precise. The only time a figure was actually mentioned, was from Gordon Brown, who alleged that 83 Tories had broken with the party line on the Euro. But, against a blizzard of claims of disunity contained in the editorial analysis, it was left to the audience to actually decide in their own minds whether the number of pro-Euro candidates was 15 or 50 or 250; although the frequent mentions of the “deafening silence” of the Europhiles surely suggested it was nearer the larger figure than the smaller. On the other side of the coin, the only estimate of the numbers of those who favoured withdrawal or ‘never’ on the Euro was that by Gordon Brown. The implication again was largely that the number was likely to be major rather than minor. And the impression generally, in consequence of this reporting by innuendo, was of a party (as Michael Crick said) close to explosion on Europe.
In turn, because the party was viewed as split, it prevented the adequate exploration of Euro-sceptic arguments.
William Hague, for example, when interviewed by both Jeremy Paxman (May 29) and John Humphrys (May 17), was questioned mainly about whether his commitment for the pound was really for one Parliament only, or forever. This was a Groundhog Day-style repeat of interviews carried out in the 1999 European elections, during the Conservative party conference in that year, and again in 2000 during the build-up to the Feira summit. The approach appeared to be designed at revealing that the stance on the Euro was a compromise that was not espoused by all in the party. This was one of a number of important issues, but by contrast, Mr Hague was not asked in any detail about why he actually opposed the Single Currency, or whether his opposition stood up to economic (as opposed to political scrutiny). Voters were thus deprived of potential insight into an important aspect of the basis of the Euro-sceptic case against the Single Currency. The same questions about the commitment to saving the pound were put with monotonous predictability to a succession of front bench spokesmen – including Francis Maude, Michael Portillo, and Andrew Lansley - but none of them were asked about
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 8 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______the economic basis for their fears. Of course, it was legitimate to test this area of party policy. The evidence of the transcripts is that it was at the expense of consideration of other matters and that this amounted to an overly narrow approach to election issues.
Another consequence of the BBC’s set of assumptions was that Euro-scepticism, though not just the preserve of the Conservatives, or even of the left or right in British politics, was explored almost entirely as a story that was espoused by the Tories and created the danger of splits for them, whether Margaret Thatcher saying ‘never’, or William Hague being pushed towards a withdrawal position.
An example of this editorial approach came from Joanathan Beale (PM May 17), early in the campaign:
but it’s always been a bigger problem for the Tories, because we remember the last election – and because they perceive themselves to be a Euro-sceptic party and have a Euro-sceptic message.
Further, because one of the main Tory issues was the perception that it was in danger of “splitting” or tilting towards the withdrawal position advocated by UKIP, the party was mainly treated as a threat to the Tories. Consideration of UKIP’s policies, of withdrawal itself or of the Euro-scepticism associated with it, was scarcely considered.
The party was asked, in limited interviews, to outline what their objectives were (mainly in interviews around the launch of the manifesto) including that they expected to take votes from parties other than the Conservatives. But the focus of the editorial approach to the party was almost entirely to examine the impact on the Tories. The Tory vote had suffered at the last election through the Referendum Party, and some Tories, notably Lord Tebbit, feared this would happen again. So this was an important avenue to explore. But it was not the only one. Events had moved on, with the Liberal Democrats becoming more strongly Europhile and openly critical of Labour’s approach to the referendum as being too slow. Against that background, it could also be expected that their supporters who were Euro- sceptical could also be drawn to the UKIP fold. The coverage, despite factors such as this, was firmly and almost totally locked in the view that UKIP would damage the Tories, and little else was explored.
If the Tory policies and strategy over Europe were explored in depth, those of the Labour party were not. Typical of the approach was that Jeremy Paxman spent half the time interviewing Tony Blair (Newsnight June 4) about his European policies than he did in the corresponding interview with Mr Hague (Newsnight May 29). The assumption appeared to be that the party was almost entirely unified behind the manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the Euro once the five economic tests were met. Some exploration was mounted into the nature and timing of the process, notably with Robin Cook. Andrew Marr (Today May 23) also suggested once that Mr Blair and Mr Brown might not be at one in their thinking on tax harmonisation, and that Tory claims that it was on the EU agenda had hit Labour. The theme was not subsequently explored. On Newsnight (May 15), at the beginning of the campaign, it was also suggested in an intro that Labour might be as split as the Tories on Europe, as Labour MPs had signed the call from Paul Sykes for a referendum on withdrawal. The programme interviewed Austin Mitchell about why he supported a claim for a referendum. But the topic was never raised again – and no other Labour Euro-sceptic was interviewed on any outlet.
There were relatively few interviews of ministers entirely about Europe. One was that by Jeremy Paxman of Robin Cook (Newsnight May 23), when the focus (outside official party policy) was on whether Mr Cook saw any political advantages of joining the Euro. This was a searching interview, and considerable unease could be detected in his unwillingness to discuss a topic outside the core party line – the political implications of joining the Euro. But he refused to really comment, and the topic was not raised again. Clare English on PM (May 25) tried to get Mr Cook to discuss whether devaluation of the pound would be a precursor of joining the Euro. He refused point blank explore the topic (on the grounds that it would irresponsible for him to do so). It was not explored again elsewhere (except with Liberal Democrats). And on Today (May 23), John Humphrys pushed Mr Cook about whether the Tory claims about tax harmonisation were true. He said they were not, agreeing with the European commission that the idea was “pure tosh”.
Elsewhere, Labour’s one initiative on Europe, Tony Blair’s speech on Europe, was reported, along with counter-claims about it by Conservatives. But the ensuing analysis of the implications, either in terms
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 9 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______of integration or perceived prevarication on the Euro, was less thorough than that into, for example, the Tory claims about tax harmonisation. On PM, for example, all that was presented was a series of soundbites from the speech. Other items involving senior Labour figures included Matthew Taylor of the IPPR, a former Labour executive (Newsnight May 15), who said that there were only one or two “maverick” members of the Labour party who were Euro-sceptics. Margaret Beckett, interviewed about the Paul Sykes initiative, (Today May 16) said it was something of a scam, and that Labour members had been duped into signing it. Gordon Brown, interviewed on Newsnight (May 24, the only dedicated interview during the entire campaign) was pushed about whether he thought the ECB policy was a problem, but refused to be drawn. Brian Wilson (PM May 28), who was quizzed on Tory allegations about the wording of the referendum, said it only arose as an issue if the Conservatives lost. He denied - without being closely challenged – the Conservative claims that it would cost £36bn to join the Euro. Matthew Taylor, interviewed a second time, said that Millbank was irritated by the way Europe kept coming up, but felt it did not really matter, as in the contest overall, they were 2-1 up. Brian Wilson, questioned about the Jospin speech, said it was largely related to France, and any moves towards harmonisation would be resisted. Brian Wilson was also interviewed (Newsnight May 28) about the plans for the rapid reaction force – he said he agreed with them, and that that it would not clash much with NATO. John Prescott interviewed very briefly on European topics (Today May 29), outlined government policies on the Euro, and denied any difference of emphasis in the party, John Monks (PM May 29) said he wanted more espousal of the EU labour laws. This point – evidence of some discord – was not pursued. Tony Blair, interviewed by Paxman, was asked only about who would decide – the Treasury or the Cabinet – about whether the five tests had been met.
Of course, Labour was interviewed on other topics, and their policies on topics such as tax, were subjected to intense scrutiny. This went, to some extent, towards balancing the relatively light examination that their policies on Europe and the Euro attracted. But the impression overall was that in the area where the Tories had chosen to fight the election, the Labour party was unified and its policies largely uncontroversial. There was little exploration of the consequences of Labour policies, for example in terms of the extent of future European integration and, in this sense, audiences were left under-informed.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 10 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Andrew Marr’s election
William Hague is piling all his chips, or most at any rate, onto the European argument… To put this politely, it feels very much like ‘win or bust
The Conservatives… may find themselves drawn towards a referendum that the political establishment in this country very much doesn’t want.
I suppose the really serious point in all of this is that there are a lot of people in the Conservative Party who want to go in ‘never’, who would agree with her about that. And also everybody here at Westminster, who’s plugged into the political circuit knows full well that privately, Margaret Thatcher isn’t simply against the Euro, she’d like to leave the EU altogether. That is a hugely dangerous issue for the Conservative Party.
Those who support the Labour and Liberal Democrat policy on closer integration with Europe often conduct the debate by using extreme terms about their opponents. Steve Richards, for example, writing in the Independent on Sunday on July 22, described those Euro-sceptics within the actual Conservative party – and therefore within the Westminster establishment - who supported lesser involvement in Europe variously as “fanatics”, while their advocacy of the Euro-sceptic case was “strident”, or “virulent”. He said the government’s aim was to clear the ground of “irrational anti-European
Against this background, the BBC had a special duty during the general election period to report and analyse the debate about European issues in carefully neutral language.
The vast output on the election meant that it was very difficult to assess whether the BBC coverage overall was fair. It drew praise from unusual quarters: the Daily Mail, for example, took the rare step of praising John Humphrys’ tough treatment of Tony Blair on Today in pushing him to explain his support Keith Vaz, and for the probing spotlight it threw in an edition of Panorama on Labour’s claims about improving the NHS. But these assessments appeared to be based on only on a very narrow part of the output, and were not an objective review of any sustained period of coverage.
The approach adopted here is to conduct a more systematic probe into what was said about one specific issue – Europe - by Andrew Marr, the BBC’s chief political correspondent. His influence has been described by the journalist Labour MP Sion Simon as “unprecedented”, and his word already individualistic reports on the BBC1 Ten O’Clock News, on BBC2’s Newsnight, and Radio 4’s Today and PM, were a fulcrum of the BBC’s journalistic ‘voice’ in interpreting the election for viewers and listeners.
Mr Marr’s reports were not a comprehensive view of campaign events, but rather, as Sion Simon also observed, “one man’s opinions” as events developed day by day. But, given the requirements on the BBC during an election period for fair and unbiased reporting, they could be expected to give a sharply-focused overview that weighed and carefully balanced the key points at stake in the election.
The approach adopted here is twofold:
A day-by-day, piece-by-piece consideration of the essays as a whole (contained in Part 3) A dismantling of the component parts to examine the language used and the treatment of individual themes and topics (below).
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 11 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Mr Marr and Labour
Andrew Marr’s central verdict, delivered on June 5, on the implications of the European policies of the main two party policies in the general election was that the choices presented would have a far- reaching impact:
But I think even beyond that, there is a choice about Europe. If Labour are re-elected on Thursday, then in four or five year’s time, we will be a European country in terms of our public spending, and our embedded-ness in the European Union, and it will be very difficult to turn again from that. If we go for the Conservatives then we will find that we have turned away from European social democratic model, and gone more for the American model. This is a very, very big choice, you know we’ve been standing here making jokes and talking about this campaign for a long time, but in the end, the choice we’re going to make this week is going to affect the kind of country we live in for a very long time to come.
Despite this summary, suggesting that policies on both sides were crucially important in their potential impact, Mr Marr seemed less concerned about Labour. Across 16 pieces of analysis, presented mainly in the flagship Ten O’Clock News, he made only these points about the Labour party approach to Europe:
That “some Labour party people” (not candidates) were saying that they would like to get out of Europe. The matter was referred to only once at the beginning of the campaign in an analysis of the impact of the Paul Sykes withdrawal referendum call.
That tax harmonisation issues divided the party, with significant differences between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, with important ramifications in relation to the Nice treaty and beyond. This was a fascinating and important point that was not referred to again.
That the Jospin speech on the future shape of Europe was bad news for Labour – presumably for its advocacy of more integration – though he did not spell out the reasons for his assertion.
That Labour was campaigning on health and education, in tune with what people wanted, while the Tories were campaigning on Europe which “doesn’t seem to be a big election issue”.
Mr Marr also mentioned briefly that there were a “lot of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters who wanted to keep the pound”, who Mr Hague was targeting and hoping to bring into his fold.
Mr Marr and the Conservatives
Mr Marr’s consideration of the Conservative approach towards Europe was much more intensive. In his analyses, the Tory campaigning led to a raft of problems: Europe was an issue that the electorate was not really interested in, despite it being chosen as the main campaigning theme; Mr Hague’s carefully constructed compromise on Europe was likely to fall apart if the election was lost; the real issue for the Tories was increasingly the damaging or “hugely dangerous” one of withdrawal; Lady Thatcher’s use of the ‘never’ word was embarrassing to Mr Hague; the ‘never’ word from Lady Thatcher was more damaging and more potent to the Tories than the suggestion of tax harmonisation was for Labour; a lot of dissident Tories believed Mr Hague was not saying enough about issues other than Europe; all the (Tory) pro-European grandees, big names, were sitting in their back gardens, with their gin slings and their arms folded, waiting (by implication, for the European policy to come unstuck); according to the polls, people were not listening to Mr Hague’s messages on Europe; Mr Hague saying that the election was also a referendum on the Euro was a dangerous ‘win or bust’ gamble that could put his party in an appalling situation; the Tories were desperately concerned about the impact on their vote of UKIP; the Labour claim that the Tories wanted withdrawal was ‘damaging’, despite Tory assertions that this was a terrible smear; Mr Hague had not thought through or answered how he would renegotiate the EU treaties, despite this being a major plank of policy; Labour claimed that private polls indicated that the Tory campaign on Europe was a ‘bizarre and gross miscalculation Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 12 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______of strategy; Mr Hague was locked into his European strategy – which he firmly believed in - but in which, the rest of the country was ‘about as engaged as the penguins’; the Tories still believed that middle England was out there and would vote on the day – but there would be a “lot of heart searching’ at Central Office about the failure to go harder on issues like health and education; there were plenty of critics of William Hague who were saying behind their hands that the focus Europe had “simply not
In other parts of his analysis, Mr Marr also noted plus points about the Conservative emphasis on Europe: Mr Hague’s steely determination, and strong belief that Europe was an issue that would win votes; the policy on Europe would appeal to the core vote; William’s Hague’s greatest service to the party had been to pull together a very careful compromise on the Europe that was holding the party together; Lady Thatcher had given Mr Hague a warm endorsement, which was more than she had done for Mr Major; the idea that Labour could go through the campaign without discussing Europe had been ‘blown out of the water’; Mr Hague sounded “impassioned” about the old Thatcher themes, including Europe; it was impossible almost to imagine any leader doing those songs (of Thatcherism) with more wit, bravura, courage, intelligence and commitment; if Mr Hague could bring in Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters who wanted to keep the pound ‘he could still turn this round’; the Tory idea of a ‘looser’ Europe went with the grain of quite a lot of people inside Europe; William Hague believed the only way to be really noticed was to go in and have a really hard confrontation and bring things to a head (with Europe) as Mrs Thatcher in some respects had done; and the Tories believed that the pound was more popular than the Conservative party at that moment.
Withdrawal/UKIP
Andrew Marr also considered (mainly in the context of his analysis of the Conservative campaign) on a number of occasions, usually obliquely, the issue of withdrawal from Europe. His central premise on this theme was that a referendum about withdrawal from Europe (as advocated by ‘some people’ in the Labour party, growing numbers of Tory candidates and UKIP) was something that “the establishment very much did not want to have” As an issue, Mr Marr considered withdrawal to be “damaging” to the Tories, either because Mr Hague was being pushed towards it by Lady Thatcher, or because growing support of it amongst candidates was pushing apart the careful compromise over Europe. Mr Marr also stressed ‘how desperately worried’ the Tories were that the UKIP withdrawal vote would damage their support. From a different perspective, he suggested that Labour’s allegations that the party was drifting towards withdrawal was also damaging, and also that few “Labour party people” might agree with Paul
Analysis
Mr Marr focused in depth on the Tory campaigning on Europe, presumably on the grounds that the decision had been taken to campaign strongly on it. As described above, his analysis brought to the fore many of the key Conservative claims (though not all), noted that the party believed Europe as an issue was a vote winner, and gave prominence to Mr Hague’s steely determination, along with his wit and bravura in his advocacy of the European arguments. He pointed out carefully the carefully- constructed compromise on Europe and Mr Hague’s achievement in engineering it, along with Lady
Noticeably, he did not bring into the reports the extreme language about Euro-scepticism often used by Europhiles, except on one occasion when there was mention of a Labour claim that Tory policy on Europe was “bizarre”.
But there were inconsistencies and illogicalities in this treatment. And unquestionably, the main thrust of his reporting was of Tory problems in this area and of the effect of Europe on the unity of the party. By contrast, he made few efforts to explore Labour European policy – either their substance or the impact on the party – or to explore the wider implications of European policy on the United Kingdom and the electorate.
1. Early in the campaign, an important part (mentioned at least three times) of his analysis was that, for the Tories, the issue of withdrawal, as supported by some candidates, in private by Lady Thatcher, and
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 13 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______possibly, by implication, by Mr Hague himself, was “damaging” or “potentially damaging” to the party. The clear inference to be drawn from this was that the party was in danger of moving to a line on Europe that would pull the careful compromise described by Mr Marr apart. But at no point did he elaborate on how big the threat was, or who precisely supported withdrawal. Nor did he properly explain why - if withdrawal was favoured by significant parts of the electorate (as polls suggested) – association with it was ‘damaging’ to the party. Mr Marr’s assumption appeared to be that the issue would be politically damaging because it would split the party, but he did not spell this out clearly. The result was that for the audience, withdrawal was the equivalent of a deus ex machina – a shadowy, but highly important, threat from the wings. The impact of the inclusion of these frequent mentions of withdrawal was to muddy the Conservative policy on Europe with insufficient accompanying analysis or explanation.
2. Withdrawal as an issue on the wider political agenda was treated by Mr Marr unevenly and cursorily. In his one substantial analysis of the topic, he accepted on one hand that the notion was supported by “some Labour people” as well as a very large number of people in this country – a “big unheard voice”. On the other, he said that there were very few MPs elected to the last parliament who represented that view and he moved to the conclusion that this was something that ‘the establishment of this country very much does not want’. There was no clear explanation of who the establishment was, though the clear implication was that the withdrawal referendum was out of court as an issue. In short, a significant number of people wanted it, but MPs and “the establishment” didn’t and it was therefore off the agenda during the election period. Otherwise, as established above, the topic of withdrawal was mentioned only as being a “hugely dangerous” problem for the Conservative party, or association with which was a weapon that Labour could use against the Tories. Mr Marr also argued that the Conservatives were desperately worried that UKIP would split the Tory vote, and that if the election was lost (as people were saying ‘behind their hands’), the anti-EU and the Euro-sceptical movement in this country would be “deeply divided”. There was no further consideration of the possibility that UKIP could also draw votes from elsewhere in the political spectrum, or that for Labour too, withdrawal was an issue.
3. Mr Marr’s analysis accepted at one point that Mr Hague had pulled together a “highly successful compromise on Europe”. He also posited early on that it was being pulled apart by Europhiles on one side, and Lady Thatcher on the other. On this theme, Mr Marr went further, and often referred to the possibility of dissent, either open or whispered.
There were, for example:
Enough Pro-European, Europhile heavy hitters left in the Tory party, just, people like Ken Clarke, Ian Taylor and so on, they don’t want to lose them during the campaign “a large part of the traditional Conservative party, (Europhile) grandees who were sitting at home
A “lot of dissidents” believing that Mr Hague’s strategy was focusing too much on Europe Many Tories” who believed the “the real agenda was withdrawal”, “Many critics of William Hague”, who behind their hands were saying that the focus should have been on health and education and the emphasis on the Euro had not worked.
All this was probably true to a greater or lesser extent. The problem was that Mr Marr at no point put the scale of dissent into any kind of clear context. It was impossible to judge from what he said whether those opposed to the compromise policy (in whatever category, whether against Mr Hague, for withdrawal or pro-European) included 10 party members, 30, or 250. The impression created by the analysis was of a party on the verge of an imminent split and heading for the rocks on the policy on which it had chosen to focus its campaign. The absence of proper contextualisation or Mr Marr’s claims in this area, given the need for impartiality during an election period, seems hard to explain.
4. Mr Marr pointed many times during the campaign to that Mr Hague (and usually Mr Hague, rather than the party as a whole) was firmly wedded to the tactical strategy of focusing on European policy, despite the findings of opinion polls, and despite whisperings of discontent from within party ranks. Mr Marr conceded that the focus on Europe was likely to secure for the Tories its core vote and had won for Mr Hague the support of Mrs Thatcher. But he also pointed, from the outset, to doubts about this approach. He claimed on May 17 that a “tactical problem” was that polls confirmed that education and health were way ahead “as the issues that voters care about most” and issues which Labour were
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 14 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______hammering relentlessly, while Europe “doesn’t seem to be a big issue for voters” He referred to the “Thatcher moment” in saying the ‘never’ word was “deeply embarrassing” for Mr Hague, and then as the election approached, to other problems:
That the polls suggested that people weren’t listening, and that Europe wasn’t high in the list of voter priorities The decision to claim the election was also a referendum on Europe was a huge gamble…”it feels
That Mr Hague, despite his desire to renegotiate the European treaties hadn’t yet answered how it would be achieved That internal polling by the Labour party attempted to demonstrate that the Conservatives were on the wrong issue That Labour claimed that this was a ‘bizarre and gross miscalculation of strategy, a terrible error
That, despite this, the Tories were locked into a strategy – that was heading for an iceberg, and the rest of the country seem to be about as engaged as the penguins The odd thing was that – despite whispers of dissent – the mood was resolute and, at least outwardly, cheerful in the Conservative camp. That the poll figures were very, very grim, triggering a lot of heart searching in Central Office about the failure to go harder on issues like health and education earlier in the campaign.
These were all strongly-worded phrases employing adjectives that suggested in various ways that the Conservative strategy was not working or in trouble. Broadly, Mr Marr first pointed out that the Conservatives might have picked the wrong issue to campaign on, then moved to saying that the polls confirmed this was the case, and finally to suggest there were growing whispers of dissent in the Tory camp about the strong emphasis on Europe. This was interleaved with important observations that the impact of the strategy might be positive in galvanising the core Tory vote and had brought out elements of statesmanship in Mr Hague. But the main impression from the outset was that the Tory strategy on Europe was wrong and then, increasingly, was not working. The job of a political analyst is to cut through the smoke and mirrors of the claim and counter-claim and tell the audience what is really going on. The question here is whether the heavy emphasis on Tory problems was entirely warranted and if so, whether the analysis properly balanced the pros and the cons of what the Conservatives were doing. For example, a fact never pointed out by Mr Marr in considering the strategy was that it had won the support of 84% of the party in an open vote. Nor did he mention that opinion polls, though putting Europe low down in the list of voter priorities also, during the course of the campaign, suggested that Mr Hague’s standing on the issue of Europe had gone up. The omission of these points was not in itself crucial, but goes towards the conclusion that overall, he was more much more willing to introduce into the equation Tory problems than Tory strengths. Analysis of Mr Marr’s approach goes to the heart of the ‘balance’ debate. What is certain is that he was very probing of the Conservative approach and keenly observant of the perceived Tory problems . Equally certainly, his exploration of the Labour policy on Europe was much less thorough .
5. Mr Marr mentioned briefly four areas of Labour’s approach to Europe. His most important claim was that there were problems between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair on tax harmonisation, but it was immediately linked to the more potent problems facing the Conservatives over the ‘never’ word. He said that the Jospin speech was bad news for Labour, but this had been preceded by an extensive mention of the claim by Labour that the Tory’s continuing emphasis on Europe. Mr Marr also said that ‘some Labour people’ wanted to quit Europe, and that some Liberal Democrat voters might be pulled into the Conservative fold because they were anti-Euro. This did not amount to extensive analysis of the Labour strategy on Europe, and their European policies were scarcely explored at all. Further, he did not touch upon (for example) several key areas of contention which were live election issues - whether there were any splits in Labour’s approach to the Euro (as had been contended), whether Tony Blair’s ‘engagement’ call was in tune with what the public really wanted and where it would lead, whether the European Commission’s intervention in the election to support the Labour claim that there was no harmonisation agenda was warranted, or the impact of Labour’s endorsement of Nice on sovereignty. He did not analyse or raise the possibility of any problems for Labour in connection with the major Tory claims of doubts over the wording and conduct of the referendum on the Euro, or about the cost of joining the currency. Labour was not itself campaigning on many of these issues, but they
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 15 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______were areas of controversy in their European policies – and as such could have been explored to explain to audiences where they stood, or in the context of points brought up by the Conservatives.
Conclusion
Andrew Marr’s voice pieces, though not claiming to be comprehensive in the ground covered, were – through the prominence given to the reports – an essential component of the overview analysis of the campaign. They were broadcast mainly on the BBC’s most high-profile news programme, and were riveting. He effectively created a daily political commentary slot, a new departure in the annals of public service news broadcasting in this country.
The analysis introduced a new type of impressionistic reporting to a general election campaign. In the past, reports by BBC chief political correspondents such as Robin Oakley or John Coles had been much more about the developments of the campaign (ie ‘Mr Hague said…’, then ‘Mr Blair said…’), rather than voice essays interpreting events.
Robin Oakley’s approach, for example during the Tory conference of 1999, was typified by two- or three- sentence summaries like this:
RO: Opinion polls tell the Tories that the country is not yet ready to listen to their sales pitch. But success in the EU election boosted their morale. The activists have to reckon that Labour’s popularity won’t last forever, and they’re stocking up their policy shelves, ready to answer those
Because he had decided to go many steps beyond this, there was a special duty on Mr Marr to present a balanced overview of the campaign and to ensure that his colourful and incisive use of phrase and adjective was scrupulously fair.
This analysis has examined carefully what he said about Europe. The conclusion is that overall, there was a heavy concentration on Conservative problems, combined with a rigorous analysis of whether their strategy on Europe stood up in the cold light of day. Mr Marr on the one hand, went out of his way to praise Mr Hague’s bravura and courage in his conduct, and on the other, to express a series of continuing doubts about the wisdom of his heavy concentration on a single issue, and about whether his carefully-constructed compromise on Europe was holding.
The weakness of his approach was a failure to put into context the scale of the issues said to be pulling the party apart. There was frequent reference to the likelihood that the compromise would fail, of whisperings behind hands but no mention of how many candidates or grandees were actually opposed to his policy. He did not bring into play at any point the countervailing information that 84% of the party had voted for the policy on the Euro, or that the estimated number of Europhile candidates s opposed to that policy was in the region of 20. .
At the time of writing, the jury is still out on how big the threats over divisions over Europe actually were. The Tory party might yet split completely over Europe, and perhaps as a direct consequence of the emphasis placed on it during the campaign. But during the campaign itself, the party did not split; the European grandees mostly maintained their silence until the very end; and the numbers involved in dissension – though perhaps drawn from some important sections of the party – were relatively few.
Mr Marr also tended to discuss the Conservative policies about Europe in his terms, thereby potentially diluting the impact on the audience. He never once, for example, described their policy as Mr Hague did, as being ‘save the pound’, talking instead about the relatively boring “European argument” or “Europe and the Euro”. In phraseology terms this was an important distinction. When Mr Marr did mention the Euro, as during Lady Thatcher’s intervention, it was often immediately linked with the ‘danger’ of the drift towards the withdrawal argument, a combination which further muddied the directness of the policy.
Equally strikingly, Mr Marr did not mention some of the key Tory claims about Europe raised during the campaign – for example that the cost of joining the Euro would be high, or that the referendum question could be rigged.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 16 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Mr Marr did explore the Conservative claims about tax harmonisation, where he said that Labour faced real problems of their own, and the Jospin speech, which he said was bad news for Labour. The former, however, was immediately juxtaposed with Lady Thatcher saying that ‘never’ was ‘potent and difficult’ for the Conservatives to a greater extent, while the latter was mentioned only after an extensive mention of Labour claims that the Conservative strategy on Europe was bizarre, and could lead to a ‘leadership crisis’.
One of the biggest problems was the failure of Mr Marr to explore beyond a few brief mentions the Labour policies on Europe. This was a party going into the election with a central manifesto promise that it would support (with some reservations) the Nice Treaty. This was also a party who many commentators believed wanted to avoid the topic of Europe because of alleged discord over the policy over the Euro. Despite this, Mr Marr mounted little exploration of whether that was the case. These were pegs which could have made such treatment directly relevant, but with one exception, they were missed.
The approach adopted by Marr therefore raised important issues about balance. The conclusion here is that there were doubts whether his reports about the campaigning linked to European issues did fairly report the respective Labour and Conservative positions.
Of course, the Conservatives did lead on Europe. As such, they invited especially close scrutiny of their European arguments and claims. In that sense, Mr Marr delivered. By contrast, Labour seemed not to want to talk much about Europe - beyond one Tony Blair speech and the repetition of their mantra on the Single Currency - and were content mostly to pour derision on the Conservative claims about hidden agendas and hidden costs. Mr Marr could have taken this silence as suspicious, given the high numbers of the population who, according to opinion polls, opposed the single currency, and an invitation to probe more deeply. He did not.
Time was limited and there is no suggestion here that Mr Marr’s analysis should have been longer. But he could have dwelled more on areas awkward to both sides.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 17 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Part 2: Precis of key points made in Mr Marr’s reports
The central points he made about Europe were:
¾ That William Hague had constructed a very careful compromise on Europe which, if the Conservatives lost the election, was likely to fall apart.
¾ On the eve of the election, that the electorate was being given a clear choice on Europe - between
If Labour are re-elected on Thursday, then in four or five years’ time, we will be a European country in terms of our public spending, and our embedded-ness in the European Union, and it will be very difficult to turn again from that. If we go for the Conservatives then we will find that we have turned away from European social democratic model, and gone more for the American model.
¾ The real agenda for many Tories was withdrawal, not simply opposition for the Euro, and that this, in turn, was “damaging”.
¾ That although the Tories were being drawn to the withdrawal position, a referendum on EU membership was something that the establishment in this country “very much doesn’t want”
¾ That Labour was campaigning on health and education, which was in tune with what people wanted, while the Conservatives were focusing on Europe which “doesn’t seem to be a big issue
¾ That Lady Thatcher’s ‘never’ word on the Euro was embarrassing to Mr Hague, and that a hugely “dangerous issue” for the Conservative party was that her support also implied that Mr Hague wanted withdrawal, as she did.
¾ That tax harmonisation caused Labour problems and underlined that there were divisions within the party over European policy, but that more important was that Lady Thatcher had said the previous day about ‘never’ was more potent and difficult for the Conservatives at a greater extent, because
“there are a lot of people as it were in the wider Conservative family in the country who really have had it up to here with Europe and want out entirely. And once you start to open the door on that – and that seems to be her private view too – then, of course, the debate expands vastly beyond where it’s been in the last few years”.
¾ That “a lot of dissident Tories” believed that William Hague wasn’t saying enough about issues other than Europe,
and a large part of the traditional Conservative Party, all those pro-European grandees, big names”, are simply sitting in the back garden, with their gin slings and their arms folded, watching.
¾ And that, despite this, William Hague was impassioned by the old Thatcher themes, lower taxes, Euro-scepticism, crime and asylum, the songs on which it was impossible to imagine any leader doing with more wit, bravura, courage, intelligence and commitment
and yet if you believe the polls, and of course he doesn’t, people aren’t listening.
¾ That William Hague saying the election was also a referendum on Europe was an enormous ‘win or bust’ gamble.
William Hague is piling all his chips, or most at any rate, onto the European argument. Now, we understand why he’s doing it, he doesn’t want votes to start to splinter off to the UK Independence Party – with Paul Sykes’s money now – and he knows that there are a lot of
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 18 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Labour and Liberal Democrat voters who also want to keep the pound. Now if he could start to bring them into the Conservative fold now, he could still turn this around. But if he fails to do that, and if he goes down to a severe defeat, then he leaves the Conservatives after the election in the most appalling position. They’ve said it was a referendum on the Euro, they’ve lost that referendum, it makes it very, very hard afterwards. To put this politely, it feels very much like ‘win or bust
¾ That Lord Tebbit’s claims about UKIP being infiltrated by MI6 showed how “desperately concerned” about its effect on their vote the Tories were
¾ That Europe would secure for the Tories its core vote, a motivated minority, more likely to vote, and that the Labour claim that the Conservatives wanted withdrawal, was “damaging”, despite Tory assertions that this was a terrible smear.
¾ That it was probably very, very difficult to achieve renegotiation of the European treaties, a fundamental question about his European policies which Mr Hague “hasn’t yet answered”. On the other hand, that the Tory idea of a “looser Europe” went with the grain of quite a lot of people inside Europe.
¾ That Lionel Jospin’s speech on Europe had been “bad news on Europe” which had prompted the Labour party to issue private polling information showing that the electorate was simply not interested in Europe – “an attempt to demonstrate that the Conservatives were on the wrong issue, were falling behind, that in the words of one Labour Party person, this was a bizarre and gross miscalculation of strategy, a terrible error on the Tory Party side”.
¾ That, despite the above, the Conservatives were determined to stick with it,
they’ve locked themselves into a strategy, there is internal debate inside the Conservative Party about it, but William Hague is going to go for it….William Hague’s…. got ten days to go – and most of the rest of the country seem to be about as engaged as the penguins.
¾ That the big difference between the parties was that Tony Blair said that there was a need to be in Europe and fully committed, while Mr Hague believed the only way to be really noticed was to go in and have a hard early confrontation, as Mrs Thatcher did so many years ago.
¾ That William Hague “had tied the tiller” in pursuing his Euro policy, and that the odd thing was not that there’s been whispers of dissent tonight, but that the mood was so resolute.
I think that’s because they believe that Tory England is still out there, it hasn’t died – it may have dies off in other parts of the country, mind you – but It’s still there in England; and there are a lot of people hiding behind their private hedges and net curtains who will come out and vote on the day. Nevertheless, these are very, very grim figures – and I think there will be a lot of heart searching in Central Office about their failure to go harder on issues like health and education earlier in the campaign.
¾ That there were plenty of critics of what William Hague had been doing, who, behind their hands, were saying that the focus should have been on health and education, and that the concentration on the Euro had simply not worked. And that Mr Hague and the people around him were utterly unmoved by this, and were steely in their determination to carry on with their x-number of days to save the pound.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 19 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Part 3: Day log of Mr Marr’s reports on Europe
On May 15, the day that Paul Sykes called for a referendum on the withdrawal from Europe, William Hague, on the 10pm news, was said by George Alagaiah to have told his candidates that they would not be disciplined for supporting the call – thus introducing the idea that, for the Tory party, European issues carried disciplinary connotations. He asked Andrew Marr “how difficult” the matter was for Mr Hague. Andrew Marr replied that it wasn’t because the document published by Mr Sykes also contained Labour names – but he went on to add that there was a “danger” for all parties because the political establishment” in this country “very much didn’t want to have” a referendum on continued membership. Mr Marr therefore introduced at the very outset of the campaign the concept that the questioning of the continued commitment to Europe was beyond “the political establishment” – whatever that might be – and therefore, by implication, extremist.
Well, immediately, not very difficult at all, because among the people who have signed up for this idea are some Labour Party people, who are saying openly that yes, they would like to get out of the EU. The background to all of this is that there are a very large number of people in this country who want to leave the European Union, and there were very, very few people who were elected to the last Parliament, behind me here, who were in favour of that, or represented that view. So to that extent, there is a big, unheard voice on this issue. Now, Paul Sykes, like many other people say that the answer is a referendum. That is also the policy of the UK Independence Party who launched their manifesto earlier this week. Now the danger, of course, for all the main parties, is once they start opening the gates to this, is more and more people may come over to the idea, and they may find themselves drawn towards a referendum that the political establishment in this country very much doesn’t want.
May 17 On the 10pm news, Andrew Marr, discussing the opinion polls, said that the Tories would be going to put emphasis on European issues, despite this showing as an issue that was unimportant to voters. He said that by contrast, Labour would be campaigning on health and education :
There is, however, a tactical problem, I think, for the Conservatives here. The polls confirm that health and education are way ahead as the issues that voters care most about. Now tomorrow, the Conservatives are going on one of their very strong issues, Asylum, and they want to end the campaign going on and on about the Euro and the European Union. And yet that doesn’t seem to be a big issue for the voters. In distinction, the Labour Party are hammering Health and Education relentlessly, and tomorrow, for instance, they’re bringing out this attractive, small document ‘Your Family’, more like a magazine, which appears to show the Prime Minister stealing a camera from a small boy for obscure reasons. Nevertheless, their issues are Health and Education, and they’re absolutely confident that they are the right ones.
From the outset, therefore, Mr Marr, using the opinion polls as evidence, cast the Conservative campaign as being focused on the wrong issue. He contrasted the problems of this choice with a much more positive phrasing of what Labour was choosing: “they are absolutely confident that they are on bias, but it was intended to focus yet again on Tory problems.
May 21 Andrew Marr mentioned on the 10pm news that Mrs Thatcher had given and interview to the Daily Mail in which she said she would support William Hague and his stance on Europe– something she had not done for John Major.
Ah! You’re asking very hard questions there. What I can tell you is, I think the Conservatives are now very keen to break out and start to discuss Europe and the Euro, and our future there – one of their big issues. An interesting thing happening tomorrow morning, Margaret Thatcher has given an interview to the Daily Mail in which she gives William Hague the kind of warm endorsement she never gave to John Major, but she Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 20 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
says Labour’s plans for Europe would be catastrophic and awful, and she also says that Tony Blair still has socialism in his bloodstream. And we also hear the William Hague is ready to turn to Europe quite quickly. Big distinction there between them and the Labour Party – who are planning to go heavily on health tomorrow: health, education, pensions, Working Families Tax Credit. Day after day, these two parties are going to talk alongside each other, as much as they are going to talk at each other.
May 22 On May 22, Andrew Marr again mentioned in an interview on Today, the Daily Mail article. He said, in analysing its importance in relation to the campaign:
What Labour will be asking, I guess - are saying already – is: privately we know that Margaret Thatcher wants us to pull out of the EU in due course, this endorsement shows that she thinks that William Hague agrees with her. So as the Conservatives bring the Euro and Europe onto the agenda, Labour are going to come back and say it’s really about withdrawal. I think probably that is where this election campaign is going next in terms of the big arguments.
This suggested unequivocally that the real Conservative agenda on Europe might be withdrawal. and he brought Labour’s attack line on that firmly into the framework. The impact was that the Tory agenda on Europe was not what was being said officially – just as Labour might have wished.
On the 10pm news, Mr Marr continued to highlight the Conservative problems over Europe, this time pointing out that, in making her speech, Lady Thatcher had said she never wanted to join the Euro, a position that went beyond the official party line. He said firmly, too, that Lady Thatcher, in private, wanted withdrawal from the EU – and claimed that this was “very dangerous” for the Conservative party. The dwelling on problems and disagreements – without any accompanying analysis of the real scale - continued.
PETER SISSONS: Andrew Marr joins me now from Westminster. Andrew, what do you make of this reappearance of Margaret Thatcher tonight? The Tory’s secret weapon, or a divisive influence that could damage all the carefully prepared policy positions.
ANDREW MARR: Well, it’s the Thatcher moment that we’ve been waiting for, and it’s come more or less on cue. Of course, what she says, using the ‘never’ word goes against the very, very carefully put together compromise that William Hague has used highly successfully so far to hold his party together. But she is a little bit like the revered but now intensely embarrassing older relative. William Hague just has to stand beside her with a fixed smile, as she says things he wishes she wouldn’t say. I suppose the really serious point in all of this is that there are a lot of people in the Conservative Party who want to go in ‘never’, who would agree with her about that. And also everybody here at Westminster, who’s plugged into the political circuit knows full well that privately, Margaret Thatcher isn’t simply against the Euro, she’d like to leave the EU all together. That is a hugely dangerous issue for the Conservative Party.
May 23 Today also carried an item in which Andrew Marr gave his opinion on the importance of the Tory claims about tax harmonisation. It was set up using a clip from Malcolm Bruce, the Liberal Democrat:
They have this absolute hatred of everything European, which is no longer rational, which is why, of course, they want to rake up old news and pretend it’s some kind of new threat. And I think the real problem is, that although the Conservatives believe that their position on the Euro is popular, it is so confused and divided that it doesn’t really amount to a credible position at all.
This was a vivid illustration of how the Tory position on Europe was being portrayed by its opponents: that Euro-scepticism, based on mistrust of the continuing development of the European project,
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 21 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______amounted to irrationality and hate. It was included without challenge or any counter-view other than Mr Marr’s own analysis. It was followed by a quote from Nigel Farage of UKIP, calling for a referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the EU. John Humphrys then asked Andrew Marr which party faced most problems because of Europe. He responded:
I think these tax harmonisation rows cause Labour some problems. This particular one may well have been overcooked, but there is no doubt that there is an agenda over time, which Labour, if re-elected is going to have to confront. And I think what’s very interesting is there are now quite real divisions inside Labour about how far to go down the tax harmonisation route. Gordon Brown at the Treasury has fought a very, very tough series of rearguard actions and seems to be making headway. But there are other people inside Labour and of course in the Lib Dems, who are much more integrationist. I think, however, what Margaret Thatcher said yesterday about ‘never’ is potent and difficult for the Conservatives at a greater extent, because there are a lot of people as it were in the wider Conservative family in the country who really have had it up to here with Europe and want out entirely. And once you start to open the door on that – and that seems to be her private view too – then, of course, the debate expands vastly beyond where it’s been in the last few years.
This was an important piece of analysis. Mr Marr accepted that there were problems within Labour, over both integration itself, and the rate at which it was acceptable. This was acknowledged here – but was not one of the election issues that was followed through to any great extent. The immediate counter-thrust was that the problem was “potent and difficult” for the Conservatives because of the ‘never’ word by Lady Thatcher, and because there were those in the party who wanted out of Europe entirely.
John Humphrys then asked why these factors would not help the Tories in getting out their vote. Mr Marr replied:
Well, they’ve got UKIP, you see, snapping at their heels, and there are enough pro- European, Europhile heavy hitters left in the Tory Party just, you know, people like Ken Clarke, Ian Taylor and so on, they don’t want to lose them during a General Election campaign. Perhaps William Hague’s greatest service to his Party in the last few years was constructing this very careful compromise to hold it together on Europe. Margaret Thatcher from one side, and the Europhiles from the other are constantly tugging, trying to break it apart. If they lose this election it probably will break apart, but for now it’s desperately important for the Conservatives to hold that line.
In other words, the Tories were split on Europe – that only a very careful compromise was keeping together. Yet there was no attempt to help listeners by saying how big the split really was – no estimates of numbers, no mention of the vote within the party on support for the Euro. This was a weakness in the analysis which was not helpful for listeners.
The 10pm news also considered a claim by Lord Tebbit that UKIP had been infiltrated by government agents. It was an item pushed on to the agenda by Lord Tebbit. It was followed by an assessment by Andrew Marr:
Well, I think it’s clear evidence of how desperately concerned a lot of Conservatives are about the electoral effect of the UKIP, and they really can’t understand why this party is targeting quite Euro-sceptic Conservative candidates in marginal seats. And it’s not just necessarily about this election, because what a lot of Tories are saying behind their hands is, ‘if we lose the election, there may be turmoil in our party, we’ll find the sceptical and the anti-EU movement in this country deeply divided, turmoil all around, and that will be the moment Tony Blair chooses to launch his campaign to get us into the Euro – exactly the wrong moment’. So for the people involved, very intense passions, a lot of heated exchanges on the ground in constituencies around the country and very, very big issues to play for.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 22 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
PETER SISSONS: Now Europe is one of the most divisive political issues of modern times, of course, now it’s up and running in this campaign, can you guess what effect it’s going to have over the next week or so?
AM: Well I think most people believe that the clearest effect will be to secure for the various parties, parts of their core vote – particularly to the Conservatives. There are a minority of people who think that Europe is the most important issue in the campaign, but they’re a very motivated minority – much more likely to come out and actually take part, participate in the election, than many other people. I think however, that Labour feels that the allegation that they’re starting to put around cautiously, that the Conservatives are sort of drifting towards a position where they might actually advocate withdrawal, is damaging. The Conservatives say that’s a terrible smear, ‘that’s not our position’, but I think what’s interesting is that Labour’s idea that they could get through a General Election campaign barely discussing Europe has already been blown out of the water.
The key point was the suggestion that Conservatives believed that the UKIP threat of dividing Tory votes was an important one, and could be indicative of wider turmoil within Tory ranks over the stance over Europe. . Andrew Marr also suggested that Labour believed that the Conservatives were moving towards the withdrawal line and that this was somehow “damaging”. He balanced this by saying that Labour was being forced to confront the European issues, perhaps against their will, but there was no analysis or elaboration of this – and the impact of the item was again focus on Tory divisions and turmoil over Europe.
May 24 On the 10pm news, Andrew Marr was asked whether the Tories had any theories why they could not make a breakthrough in the polls. He answered:
Well, they certainly do. Certainly a lot of dissident Tories do, they think it’s because William Hague isn’t saying enough about those issues. Now, as it happens, by coincidence, he’s going on education in a big way tomorrow. But when you listen to William Hague, what does he sound really impassioned, really committed about? He sounds committed about those old great Thatcher themes – about lower taxes, Euro- scepticism, crime – and he’s been banging on about them, and impossible almost to imagine any leader doing those songs with more wit, bravura, courage, intelligence, commitment, and yet if you believe the polls, and of course he doesn’t, people aren’t listening. And a large part of the traditional Conservative Party, all those pro-European grandees, big names, are simply sitting in the back garden, with their gin slings and their arms folded, watching.
This, on the face of it, seemed to say that William Hague was playing to Tory strengths. But there was a sting in the tail that was enigmatic – that “a large part of the traditional Conservative party grandees, big names…are simply sitting in their back gardens”, plus the reference at the beginning to the (unspecified and unnamed) “lot of dissident Tories”. This clearly suggested that a “large part of the traditional party” was doing nothing to support Mr Hague. It suggested that that “large part” was pro- Europe, conveying the clear suggestion that a majority were against Mr Hague and his European focus. Here, as elsewhere in similar analysis, Mr Marr gave no clue to the numbers involved – the impression was that the party was dominated by a dissident and cynical rabble.
May 25 Andrew Marr turned as his main point of the evening to the analysis of why Mr Hague had said the election was a referendum on Europe. This is what he said:
This strikes me as being an enormous gamble. William Hague is piling all his chips, or most at any rate, onto the European argument. Now, we understand why he’s doing it, he doesn’t want votes to start to splinter off to the UK Independence Party – with Paul Sykes’s money now – and he knows that there are a lot of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters who also want to keep the pound. Now if he could start to bring them into the
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 23 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Conservative fold now, he could still turn this around. But if he fails to do that, and if he goes down to a severe defeat, then he leaves the Conservatives after the election in the most appalling position. They’ve said it was a referendum on the Euro, they’ve lost that referendum, it makes it very, very hard afterwards. To put this politely, it feels very much like ‘win or bust’
This was said without qualification: that Mr Hague (pointedly, not the Conservatives) was taking an enormous gamble. Subsequent events may have proved that the analysis was right and this was a pivotal point in the election.. But again, the focus in the coverage was relentlessly on the Conservatives problems over Europe. There was no countering analysis of what the Tony Blair speech meant to Labour, whether there were any potential problems with the policy, whether there was any prevaricating. Labour was focusing less on Europe, but the reasons were not even explored.
On Newsnight, Mr Marr, repeated broadly what he had said on the 10pm news. Jeremy Paxman then asked:
Can you help us on one other point? The Prime Minister made the point very strongly that selective renegotiation of British membership of the European Union, which is what he says the Conservatives want, is simply not on the cards. Is that true?
AM: Probably is very, very difficult to do it. William Hague, Prime Minister arrives at the table and says, ‘right, I want to renegotiate this treaty and that treaty’ – whoever’s chairing the European Council says, ‘that’s very interesting, thank you very much indeed, Prime Minister, any seconders for that motion?’ There is then a silence – and what does William Hague do then? That is the fundamental question that he hasn’t yet answered. On the other hand, the Tory idea, which is a looser Europe does go with the grain of quite a lot of people inside Europe. Longer term, some of Francis Maude’s ideas, what he calls a multi-system Europe, you know, are not implausible, it all depends on, really, what the other countries are also wanting to do.
The statements about renegotiation – that the Conservatives had not tackled the issue of what happened if fellow members said no – were not strictly accurate. William Hague had questioned on Today on precisely that theme 20 months previously, and had maintained that in the past, the party had succeeded in renegotiations of treaty terms, notably at Maastricht over the Single Currency. If Mr Marr meant that Mr Hague e hadn’t tackled the topic during this election campaign, as in interviews covered by this survey, the topic had not even been mentioned editorially up until now. But is that was the case, the impression given was rather more – it sounded as though the policy was not thought through, when clearly it had been.
May 28 The 10pm news opened with Michael Buerk saying that Lionel Jospin had set out his vision for Europe, calling for the harmonisation of business taxes, and an EU constitution – but not a federal Europe. A report from Justin Webb summarised some of the key points of the speech, signalling that it was strongly in favour of the European Defence Force, and he opined that Mr Blair “could pick and choose the best of the German plans with the best of the French”, before pointing out that something would have to be given in exchange.
Michael Buerk then said that the Tories were still plugging away at the Euro, and asked Andrew Marr if there was any sense it as having any impact on the campaign.
He replied:
Well, only at the margins, in some parts of the country yes, but not generally. The most extraordinary thing happened this afternoon, I’d never seen it in an election campaign before, which is that the Labour Party gave details of all their internal polling, issue by issue, in an attempt to demonstrate that the Conservatives were on the wrong issue, were falling behind, that in the words of one Labour Party person, this was a bizarre and gross miscalculation of strategy, a terrible error on the Tory Party side. The question is what were they up to? It certainly wasn’t meant to be helpful advice, and our
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 24 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
assumption is, it’s either that they intended to break morale at Conservative Central Office, and create some sense of a leadership crisis there before the election, or, possibly, to try and push the Tories off the Euro, in the thought that it is beginning to have some effect. Certainly Lionel Jospin’s speech then was bad news for Labour, and it’s dominating some of tomorrow morning’s front pages.
MB: So ten days to go – the Tories going to stick with it?
AM: I think they’re determined to stick with it, they’ve locked themselves into a strategy, there is internal debate inside the Conservative Party about it, but William Hague is going to go for it. It’s a human story too of course, one of the American critics of the film running at the moment, Pearl Harbour said the schmaltzy ending was a bit like trying to remake the Titanic with Kate Winslett killing the iceberg in the last scene. Well, in a sense, William Hague’s got to kill that iceberg, and he’s got ten days to go – and most of the rest of the country seem to be about as engaged as the penguins.
The explanation of the Jospin speech was minimal, with only limited examination of the significance within the general election campaign of what Newsnight later said was ”highly integrationist in tone”. This was surely a case where the main news bulletin of the day on television could have explored some of the differing views on European integration. Andrew Marr’s commentary did not touch at all on the claims and counter-claims made during the day – for example on the cost of during the Euro – but on whether the Tory stress on the Euro was having any impact on voters. His assessment, that the country seemed to be as engaged as the penguins, strongly suggested that – with many days yet to go in the campaign – the Conservatives were out of touch with the electorate.
May 29 On the 10pm news, John Pienaar’s item about the election, angled on the Romano Prodi speech, mentioned that Mr Brown and Mr Blair might be at odds over the Euro policy, and clearly put into context both Mr Hague’s concerns over the Prodi approach and Mr Blair’s stance of closer co- operation. Mr Blair’s views were buttressed by those of the Liberal Democrats, underlying that Europhiles had a 2:1 inclusion in most pieces about Europe . Mr Pienaar concluded:
Tony Blair won’t be asking his party to start campaigning for the Euro at this stage. But he does believe there are votes to be won on Europe if he strikes the right tone. And that’s what he tried to do today – a pro-European message, delivered in a patriotic and combative tone. Mr Blair isn’t just trying to overcome the Tory’s Euro-sceptic arguments, he’d also like to prove wrong those Labour colleagues who’d rather talk about something else.
There was mention from Peter Sissons that the polls suggested that Europe did not matter.
The polls seem to be suggesting that Europe isn’t playing very well, yet at least for the Tories – but that’s no fault of some European leaders it would seem?
ANDREW MARR: Well, this is the world we all now live in. We may be having a General Election campaign, but it doesn’t matter much I think to Mr Prodi, or to Lionel Jospin the French Prime Minister, or Mr Schroeder, any of the others. They stomp across this battlefield making their important speeches for their own audiences, talking about the future of Europe, and the big difference I think between the parties is how you deal with that. Tony Blair says you’ve got to be in there, we’re as big as they are, our voice can matter as much or more than these people, if we would only fully commit ourselves to Europe; while William Hague believes the only way to be really noticed is to go in and have a hard early confrontation, and bring things to a head, as indeed Mrs Thatcher, who ten years on still seems to dominate British politics in some respects did so many years ago.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 25 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
This was a neutral assessment of the differences between the two parties on their approach to Europe, though Andrew Marr did not really explain why Mr Hague wanted to “go in hard and have an early confrontation”. The impression given was thus that Mr Blair wanted a reasonable discussion, while Mr Hague straightforwardly wanted out. This was linked to similar actions by Lady Thatcher, clearly implying that it could be done, though it did not entirely redress the overall negativity of the impression given.
May 30
The 10pm news continued with the perceived shift in Tory policy, with headline that William Hague had admitted that it was not the last chance to save the pound. Like PM, it said that William Hague’s policy on the pound had come under pressure from all sides, including his own. These were said to include “two senior Tory back-benchers”, though only one, Ian Taylor, was mentioned by name. John
Tony Blair denies he’s complacent, but there’s no denying Labour’s confidence. As for Mr Hague, he’s refusing to buckle under pressure, and the signs are that Europe and the Euro will continue to run through the final stages of his campaign. That’s his decision; whatever happens to the Tories in this election, the buck stops with him.
This was followed by a look at the opinion polls by Peter Snow, in which he asserted that the most recent ones suggested that “the Conservative focus on Europe had little impact”. He concluded:
And why isn’t the Euro helping the Tories in the polls? Perhaps because most people say it’s not an important issue for them. And, look at this Telegraph asked people what they think about joining the Euro. 11% say Britain should join as soon as possible, 46% say Britain should probably join, but not yet. 20% say it would not be a good idea, and another 20% say ‘never’. Half, 40%, less than half, firmly against – that’s all. It’s by no means so clear cut as the usual ‘yes/no’ type polls have suggested.
Andrew Marr’s response to whether there would be a change in policy over the last week was:
No, not really. I think William Hague has tied the tiller as it were, and is pursuing the Euro campaign, you know, ‘it’s seven days to go to save the pound, five days to go, four days to go’. You can’t suddenly change direction when you’re doing that. And they cling on to the hope – which is a genuine belief – that the pound is more popular than the Conservative Party in the country at the moment. The odd thing is not that there’s been whispers of dissent tonight, the odd thing frankly is that the mood is so resolute and, at least outwardly, cheerful in the Conservative camp. And I think that’s because they believe that Tory England is still out there, it hasn’t died – it may have dies off in other parts of the country, mind you – but It’s still there in England; and there are a lot of people hiding behind their private hedges and net curtains who will come out and vote on the day. Nevertheless, these are very, very grim figures – and I think there will be a lot of heart searching in Central Office about their failure to go harder on issues like health and education earlier in the campaign.
The emphasis here was on showing that, in the face of mounting and “grim” evidence that they should not, the Conservatives were sticking to their focus on Europe – though they were changing their policies. John Pienaar’s analysis stressed that there were even Tories who did not support the emphasis on Europe policy, as well as the Liberal Democrats and the “not complacent” Tony Blair . The impression of wrong tactics was reinforced by John Snow’s heavy emphasis on the finding of one poll in the Daily Telegraph that suggested that opinion against the Euro might not be as strong as had been assumed. Andrew Marr made it clear that the Conservative camp continued to believe, or “cling on to the hope that” that their strategy was right, although claiming that there would now be heart searching “about failure” to go harder on issues like health. The implication – still a week before the election – was that the Tories had campaigned on the wrong issue, and were heading for a defeat on an area where even the polls about the Euro suggested that they did not have as much backing of the electorate as they had assumed. Of course the polls supported that contention. The question is whether the tone of imminent defeat - at this stage of the campaign – was right.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 26 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
May 31 On PM, Clare English continued the theme of the “failure” of the Tory’s attack plans, went for tax, they went on the Euro – they failed. Labour still seems to be out there where it was at the beginning of the campaign”. Andrew Marr continued:
Even at this stage, this is an argument not yet resolved inside the Conservative Party. There are plenty of critics of what William Hague has been doing; there’s plenty of people saying, behind their hands, we should be going on health and education day after day, this concentration on the Euro is simply not working. Mr Hague and the people around him are utterly unmoved by this, they are steely in their determination to carry on with their x-number of days to save the pound theme – it’s what he was talking about again in meetings I’ve been at with him today, and I think again the reason is that he feels that there is underlying movement that people are starting to hear his message about the pound, and that if he goes down, at least he goes down on the issue that matters most to him – and he would argue, to the country.
This was a strong intro: that Tory strategy had – quite simply – “failed”. Andrew Marr’s commentary balanced this to some extent by noting Mr Hague’s steely determination and conviction that he was right. But he also brought in that people were saying behind their hands that the emphasis on the Euro was not working – and again, the emphasis was on Tory problems, now to the point that a week before the election “they had failed”, and that there was an argument ‘not yet resolved’ within the party. He did not attempt to clarify how many his ‘many’ was, or how big the argument was.
June 5 In the 10pm news, Andrew Marr summarised the choice facing voters on Europe as follows:
But I think even beyond that, there is a choice about Europe. If Labour are re-elected on Thursday, then in four or five year’s time, we will be a European country in terms of our public spending, and our embedded-ness in the European Union, and it will be very difficult to turn again from that. If we go for the Conservatives then we will find that we have turned away from European social democratic model, and gone more for the American model. This is a very, very big choice, you know we’ve been standing here making jokes and talking about this campaign for a long time, but in the end, the choice we’re going to make this week is going to affect the kind of country we live in for a very long time to come.
This was a very clear assessment, devoid of anything other than the basic facts.
June 6 In the 10pm news, during an item in the fall in the value of the pound against the dollar, Peter Sissons said it had come “amid speculation that if Labour is re-elected, Britain could start campaigning for
Andrew Marr reported on William Hague’s campaigning, noting that for breakfast, he’d asked for a .Mr Hague is not a man who willingly chooses the continental option”. He added: “ And they’ve been marching in this campaign to save the pound – despite the critics, still for Mr Hague what matters most”. There followed a soundbite from Mr Hague in Winchester, saying that it was there that the pound was minted for a very long time; “These people who you see with Labour posters want to destroy the independence of our country”.
This was a short finale in the coverage of the election. It re-emphasised that for the Conservatives, the pound was the central issue of the campaign. In contrast, Charles Kennedy was included with the following:
This election isn’t a referendum on Europe or the Euro, it’s not about some of the outrageous claims and counter-claims the other two have been making. This is about a Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 27 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
chance for the public to record their view about the quality of our public services in this country.
Mr Hague had said frequently that a number of issues were important. On this, the last day of the campaign, there was mention – from Michael Portillo – that he used to believe, but now saw it did not work, that high taxation and high public spending was socially responsible. But the impression left by Andrew Marr was on the pound.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 28 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Jeremy Paxman’s Election
Newsnight anchorman Jeremy Paxman holds the reputation of television’s toughest and most uncompromising interviewer. His style is combative, his questioning often alarmingly direct, and his demeanour - according to commentators - lies somewhere between ‘redoubtable’ and ‘sneering’. Certainly, his pugilistic interrogations have long caused jitters amongst politicians and party strategists. Mr Paxman received journalism awards for an interview in which he asked Michael Howard the same question fourteen times over, while the offer of an interview with Tony Blair on the eve of Nato’s bombing of Serbia was famously withdrawn by Downing Street when it was discovered that Mr Paxman would be at the helm.
The stakes are always high for those entering into a head-to-head discussion with Mr Paxman, and during the general election campaign they were raised even further – for the first time to the point where his interrogations were officially (according to the BBC press office) the main ones of the campaign.
An examination of Jeremy Paxman’s contribution to the election debate – particularly with regards to the Europe question – is necessarily something of a piecemeal process. Unlike the BBC’s political editor, Andrew Marr, Jeremy Paxman did not enjoy a regular daily platform within the schedules. Mr Paxman presented only three of Newsnight’s five weekday editions and even within these three programmes interview duties were often split between him and other presenters or correspondents. Thus, whether politicians encountered Mr Paxman himself or one his fellow presenters was a question partly of chance, dependent on who was presenting Newsnight on that particular evening, and how the interviews were allocated within the programmes themselves
This aside, Mr Paxman did tackle European issues on a number of occasions, and as the BBC’s nominated chief inquisitor of this election, his contributions formed a vital component of the corporation’s coverage.
15th May – Paul Sykes’s Call For A Withdrawal Referendum
On the 15th May Newsnight carried a feature on Paul Sykes’s decision to publish a series of newspaper advertisements calling for a referendum on withdrawal from the European Union, signed by a number of Labour and Conservative MPs. The story had been covered briefly by the BBC 10 O’Clock News earlier that evening, and ran as Newsnight’s ‘headline’ item.
The feature was divided into four distinct segments. In the first, Mr Paxman asked for background information from BBC correspondent Michael Crick. His questions were brief, allowing Mr Crick space to describe events, although Mr Paxman appeared somewhat exasperated at the apparent confusion surrounding the actual number of Labour MP signatories: In his own introduction he had stated there were two, while Michael Crick mentioned seven names. At Michael Crick’s suggestion that perhaps some of the Labour MPs might have thought they were signing up to a referendum on the Single Currency rather than withdrawal, Mr Paxman was incredulous, ‘how could they have thought that?’, he thundered, to which Mr Crick could reply only half-heartedly, ‘People make mistakes?’
Next came an interview over the telephone with Austin Mitchell, one of the confirmed Labour signatories. He was asked only three questions: why he had signed, whether he had been ‘leant on’ and whether the other Labour MPs had been named erroneously. By Mr Paxman’s usual standards, the encounter was comparatively lenient. It appears that with the wealth of confusion surrounding the story, he judged that gaining a firm sense of the facts was probably more important at this stage than giving Mr Mitchell a harsh interrogation.
There followed a longer discussion with Tim Collins, Senior Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party, linked to the studio via satellite from Westminster. The tone of this interview was much more aggressive from the outset. Mr Paxman began with a strong opening assertion – that there was a discipline problem within the Conservative Party – and moved on to contest that the Conservative Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 29 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______signatories were acting against party policy. Mr Collins attempted to point out that Labour had failed to put up an official spokesman, and that this demonstrated how scared they were of the issue, but he was told that this was irrelevant by Mr Paxman, who repeated at various points, “I’m not asking about the Labour Party, I’m asking about the Conservative Party”. As the interview progressed, the confrontational atmosphere developed further, with Mr Paxman interrupting and speaking over Mr Collins on a number of occasions.
An official Labour Party spokesman had decided not to appear. The final segment therefore featured a studio-based interview with Matthew Taylor of the IPPR, who Mr Paxman introduced as someone who was ‘generally speaking, sympathetic’ to the Labour Party. However, the use of Mr Taylor here raised problems in terms of balance of approach: although the opinions he expressed were broadly supportive of the Labour Party line, these views were delivered without any real accountability (unlike those of Mr Collins). This difficulty was illustrated most tellingly when Mr Paxman stumbled over a question, correcting the phrase ‘your leader’ to ‘the Labour leader’. The exchange as a whole was markedly different from that involving Mr Collins, as it lacked the confrontational tone of the previous segment (possibly because of Mr Taylor’s role as regular Newsnight contributor?). He was given space to explain his opinion – that there were only “one or two maverick Labour MPs” (like Austin Mitchell) - on whether the affair was embarrassing for Tony Blair, and although Mr Paxman did interrupt to pronounce, ‘The Labour Party is divided on Europe’ the tone was that of a discussion rather than an argument.
The decision by the Labour Party to avoid a confrontation appeared to pay dividends. Each time Mr Collins attempted to bring Labour into the discussion, Mr Paxman was quick to berate him. As such, the impact of Mr Collin’s comments was negated – although he did manage to make criticisms and explain his points, the insinuation was that he was somehow ducking the question or attempting to divert attention away from the Conservative Party’s own problems. On many occasions the interview strategy employed by Mr Paxman would have been justified – politicians often attempt to move the focus onto their opponents during difficult interviews, and it is often essential that they be reined back in. However in this case, with no official Labour spokesman facing Mr Paxman’s tough questioning, the Labour Party managed to escape scrutiny on the issue to a much greater extent. An item that was set up as an inquiry into both parties was therefore not even-handed, at least partly because of the different approaches adopted by Mr Paxman to his two main interviewees.
22nd May – Interview with Andrew Lansley
Mr Paxman’s next treatment of a Europe-related issue came just over a week later, when Lady Thatcher’s ‘never’ to the Euro during a conference speech was handled as Newsnight’s main story. The package began with a Martha Kearney report on the various political responses to the speech. Afterwards, Mr Paxman interviewed Conservative Shadow Cabinet member, Andrew Lansley.
The opening questions from Mr Paxman concerned Lady Thatcher’s apparent divergence from official Tory policy, while Mr Lansley responded with attempts to turn the discussion to other comments Lady Thatcher had made in her speech. The result was a hard-fought series of exchanges, with Mr Paxman interrupting and speaking over his guest at almost every juncture, and pursuing the same question throughout the whole first section of the interview.
Mr Paxman then moved onto to a specific attack on the Conservative Party’s Euro policy, drawing distinctions between the policy of ‘no’ to the Euro ‘for the lifetime of the next parliament’ and other policies – on the Falkland Islands, on the privatisation of the steel and rail industries – which he argued were beliefs held were born of principle and not limited to a parliamentary term. Again the exchanges were heated; at times the interviewer and interviewee spoke simultaneously, to such and extent that certain sections suffered from a lack of intelligibility.
This was a characteristically robust interview. Andrew Lansley managed to fight his corner relatively well – and put across several points about party policy - despite the strong onslaught from Mr Paxman. The main criticism here is that while the questions put to Mr Lansley were valid, little new ground was covered. The line of questioning in the first section was very similar to that of the Tim Collins interview on Conservative Party unity eight days previously. The second section - on the perceived
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 30 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______incongruity of the Conservative’s Euro policy – employed arguments used continually through the campaign, for example by John Humphrys in his interview with William Hague on the Today Programme, 17th May.
Mr Paxman seemed to judge that the main issue facing the Conservative party, and which needed clarifying for viewers, was whether the ‘never’ to the pound was for one parliament words had raised the policy once more. But it is debatable whether this merited exactly the same ground being trod: there were other European issues at stake in the election, and very little space to explore them. Mr Paxman’s focus seemed to illustrate that he did not wish to explore these areas.
23rd May – Interviews with Robin Cook and Menzies Campbell
As with the previous evening, the interviews were pegged onto a report by Martha Kearney, who gave a generic overview of governmental attitudes to the Euro, and of the chancellor’s five economic tests. But in contrast to the previous night’s interview, Mr Paxman’s systematic grilling of Robin Cook paid much greater dividends, and the interview became one of the most memorable of the election campaign.
The same principal question – on the political advantages of joining the Euro – was asked repeatedly until the Foreign Secretary, unable to answer to Mr Paxman’s satisfaction, became halted and stuttering in his responses. Each time Mr Cook attempted to provide a reason, Mr Paxman contested that he was actually putting forward an economic argument rather than a political one as had been requested.
Mr Paxman then pushed further, by asking if there would be a political price for joining the Euro. Again Mr Cook was unable to answer the question, attempting instead to discuss the political price Britain might pay if the country were to remain outside the Single Currency. Mr Paxman was equally ruthless, “I’m sorry. That wasn’t my question. My question was: what political price we pay if we join – not if we don’t join – but if we join.” Mr Cook was left clinging to well-worn Labour maxims such as “if the economic circumstances are right” and “if the people vote for a referendum”. Jonathan Freedland, writing for The Guardian on 7th June, commented on the encounter thus:
When Paxman asked Robin Cook to make the political case for the euro, the foreign secretary seized up, convinced this straightforward inquiry was a trick question. He could not speak.
This analysis perhaps tells only half the story. Mr Cook’s loss of composure appeared as much due to Mr Paxman’s well thought out questions than it did to any fear of trickery. The questions proved difficult because they were a dexterous reversal of the more typical Euro-related inquiries put to Labour politicians. The traditional reliance on the Chancellor’s five economic tests appeared to be subverted with a question which pulled economics out of the equation altogether; the party’s focus on the fear that Britain could be ‘left behind’ by remaining outside the Eurozone was destabilised with the question on the political price of joining the Single Currency. Faced with these enquiries, Mr Cook attempted to revert to traditional Labour mantras, but Mr Paxman was ruthlessly pedantic in keeping Mr Cook to the issues he had set out – and this is why the Foreign Secretary appeared to flounder so badly.
The subsequent interview with Menzies Campbell was far less confrontational. The first question was straightforward and fairly ‘soft’: “You’d like us to join the Single Currency?” and although the follow- up was slightly tougher – a question as to why their Euro policy was downplayed so much in their manifesto – Mr Campbell was given ample space to describe the Liberal Democrat policy, without interruption.
Mr Paxman moved on to discuss the five economic tests, and the Liberal Democrats’ proposed sixth test, before questioning Mr Campbell on whether the pound would have to be devalued to enter the Single Currency. Again, despite Mr Paxman repeating the question a number of times, Mr Campbell was given a substantial amount of space to expand upon his views. The final question, on when a referendum ought to take place also allowed Mr Campbell to speak at some length, without interruption.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 31 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Menzies Campbell was provided with a set of questions that he handled fairly easily, and juxtaposed with the preceding interview, the sequence magnified Robin Cook’s discomfort. However, when the previous evenings interview with Andrew Lansley is taken into consideration, it would appear that Mr Paxman’s treatment of Menzies Campbell was perhaps rather lenient by comparison. As the only Liberal Democrat candidate to face Mr Paxman on the issue of Europe during the election campaign, one might have expected a much more abrasive encounter.
29th May – Interview with Nigel Farage
Mr Paxman’s interview with Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party was very brief, and consisted only two lines of enquiry. The first was designed to establish that UKIP had no chance of winning the election and thus taking Britain out of Europe – something that was perhaps rather self-evident. After a follow-up question on how many seats UKIP expected to win, Mr Paxman moved onto the subject of UKIP splitting the Conservative vote and thereby increasing the chance of a Europhile party gaining power. Mr Farage was given space to criticise the Conservative policy of ‘in Europe not run by Europe’, although when he attempted to mention the Labour Party, he was interrupted by Mr Paxman who pushed him again on the notion of splitting the Euro-sceptic vote. The brevity of the interview appeared to protect Mr Farage from the type of onslaught witnessed previously, although ultimately the drift of the interview was much in keeping with other BBC News treatment of UKIP during the election – they were painted as a threat to the Conservative vote - and as such the encounter offered little in the way of originality.
The Leader Interviews: 29th May –William Hague and 4th June –Tony Blair
The interviews with the various party leaders formed a central plank of Newsnight’s election coverage. Kirsty Wark met with Charles Kennedy on the 21st May, but the task of interviewing the two main party leaders fell, as was to be expected, to Jeremy Paxman.
These interviews were promoted as important election events. Viewing figures were higher than average for the encounter with Mr Hague, while the programme featuring the Tony Blair interview more than doubled Newsnight’s average for the election period, drawing in 2.4 million viewers at its peak. In addition, both interviews were available to view on the Newsnight website, along with full transcripts.
In terms of analysis, there are difficulties in comparing the two separate interviews directly. Foremost, Mr Paxman was clearly searching for the issues that would cause the maximum discomfort for both Mr Blair and Mr Hague, and thus the issues covered were often very different. Secondly, the interviews were conducted almost a week apart and the issues at the top of the election news agenda had changed. However, there were important differences in terms of both content and Mr Paxman’s own interview style that cannot be readily explained solely through reference to these factors.
Content
Following the second interview, The Guardian published two tables, breaking the interviews into their constituent parts. The results are shown below, rearranged in order of duration
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 32 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Subject Duration (Seconds) 25m 10s Interview with William Hague Euro/Referendum 380 Interview with Tony Blair Opinion Polls 210 Subject Duration (Seconds) Hague/Ffion 203 Economy 180 Labour Campaign 348 Changing Policies 132 NHS 347 Leadership 110 Taxation 254 Ann Widdecombe 90 Leader Judgement 243 Manifesto 80 Labour Manifesto 240 Asylum Seekers 80 Income Tax 164 Interest Rates 45 The Euro 153 TotalLong-term Perspective 30m90 39s The most obvious difference illustrated by these tables is in the duration of the interviews themselves. Mr Blair was given a thirty-minute slot, while Mr Hague’s was some five minutes shorter. Why this should be was not explained. Of course, the fact that Mr Hague was given a shorter interview does not automatically signify that Mr Hague was disadvantaged (by not having as much time to put his views across). It could reasonably be argued that that in this style of interview, the shorter the ordeal the better; but the difference in timings does raise issues of pace: Mr Blair was challenged on only eight distinct areas over his half hour, while Mr Hague was interviewed on ten issues over his twenty-five minutes.
The subject headings in the table are (by necessity) very broad, and disguise to some extent the intricacies of the interviews: many of the questions were multi-layered, barbed, or had obvious subtexts. The section of the William Hague interview broadly titled ‘Economy’ in the Guardian’s table, for example, was a series of questions designed to suggest that Mr Hague’s leadership was weak and that he was changing his tax, minimum wage and general economic policy in accordance with Michael Portillo’s suggestions. Similarly, as shall be discussed in more detail subsequently, the 153 seconds spent discussing ‘the Euro’ with Mr Blair actually featured a series of questions more concerned with his relationship with Gordon Brown.
Interview Style
Mr Paxman began his leader interviews with both barrels blazing. There were no pleasantries or greetings; rather, both Mr Hague and Mr Blair were immediately presented with tough questions criticising their leadership skills and political track records. Both encounters were considered ‘bruising’ by the commentators in the press. The Independent (9th June) called the Hague interview ‘the nadir of his campaign’, while Sarah Crompton, writing for The Daily Telegraph on the 31st May said of the same interview:
It was like watching Lennox Lewis batter an amateur: a mismatch in which you longed for the referee to step in and stop the misery.
Meanwhile the BBC, according to The Guardian (7th June), “was inundated with calls, many of them complaints.” with the Hague set piece leading to 88 calls from viewers, and the Blair interview attracting 103. Certainly, neither leader received an easy ride. Mr Blair became visibly rattled during a series of questions on the widening gap between rich and poor, ultimately suggesting that they ought to instead discuss what Labour were doing for the poorest of society. Mr Paxman snapped back, “I assume you want to be Prime Minister. I just want to be an interviewer. Can we stick to that arrangement?” Yet despite such exchanges, there were unmistakable differences in the way Mr Blair and Mr Hague were treated. Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 33 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
The questions put to Mr Blair were much more likely to be on the subject of governmental or Labour policy. By contrast, much of the William Hague interview concentrated on his personality. A report by Loughborough University, commissioned by The Guardian demonstrated that virtually half of the interview with Mr Hague was taken up with questions relating to personality issues, compared to 32% of Mr Blair’s interview. Questions to Mr Hague were also brutally direct – often to the point of rudeness, including “Why do these polls show [people] don't really like you”, “What is it like fighting a campaign you know you are going to lose”, “Could you think, in the history of your party, of a worse time to have become leader than when you did?” and “People do not, as far as we can see, seem to like
By contrast, such personal probing was conspicuous by its absence six days later. Although Mr Blair was challenged fiercely on matters such as health, taxation and political sleaze, the criticism was generally far more abstract – aimed at failings in his policies rather than flaws in his personality. Perhaps the most remarkable exchange occurred towards the end of the Hague interview. Mr Paxman moved onto the topic of Mr Hague’s wife Ffion, with an accusation that she had been ‘trailed around mutely’. Mr Paxman later justified the inclusion of this question by claiming:
If you take your wife on the campaign trail and parade her as a political asset, it is quite legitimate to ask a question about the use of your wife," (The Guardian, 7th June)
Yet while the question itself may have indeed been legitimate, it is debatable as to whether the issue of Ffion Hague’s silence merited more scrutiny than Cherie Blair’s – or matters such as asylum, taxation, crime, or the NHS – issues which were either included very briefly or omitted completely (arguably adding to the impression that the Conservative policies did not cover them). As Sarah Crompton concluded:
On Tuesday, Paxman crossed an invisible line. He didn't reveal anything about Hague or Tory policy, instead he devoted half an hour to torturing his subject. It was political journalism as a game of Survivor. Not an edifying sight. (The Telegraph 31st May)
The Euro - William Hague
On the day the interview with William Hague was conducted, Europe and the Single Currency had been dominating the election agenda for almost a week, and over a quarter of the interview was devoted to discussing these issues.
The first set of questions referred to the Conservatives’ depiction of the election as a referendum on the future of the pound. Mr Paxman chief assertion here was that if indeed this were a Euro referendum, then the Conservatives ought to abide by the will of the British people on the matter, should they be defeated in the general election. The pursuit of the point by Mr Paxman was relentless, and the potency of his argument perhaps signified the beginnings of a shift in the Conservative Party’s election strategy. During the interview Mr Hague affirmed that he would indeed continue to battle to save the pound, even if he lost the election, and he also maintained that any referendum organised by a Labour Government would be rigged. Over subsequent days the Conservative slogan was to evolve: from ‘the fair chance to pound’.
The second raft of questions concentrated again on the Conservative policy of no to the Euro ‘for the lifetime of the next parliament’. The alleged incongruity of this policy appeared to be the preferred angle used by many BBC journalists throughout the campaign, and indeed had been used by Mr Paxman in his interview with Andrew Lansley a week earlier. Yet on this occasion the approach taken was subtly different. In keeping with his treatment of the Conservative leader throughout the interview, Mr Paxman was keen to keep the discussion on a personal level, and framed the questions in terms of Mr Hague’s own principles and convictions.
Mr Hague attempted to draw the discussion back towards his Party, by asserting, “My position is indistinguishable from the party. I am the leader, I set the policy.” But Mr Paxman was relentless in his drive to discover Mr Hague’s personal opinion. This quickly became repetitive. One series of exchanges – Mr Hague expressing his own opinion as a desire ‘to keep the pound’, Mr Paxman
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 34 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______immediately retorting ‘Forever?’ and Mr Hague replying ‘I set the policy for one parliament at a time – was repeated in full on three occasions.
Mr Paxman’s decision to push so hard on the same point illustrated precisely what the policy was (warts and all). But it also meant there was little opportunity to cover other important elements of Conservative European policy, for example the practicality of their plans to renegotiate the treaty of Nice, or the response to Mr Blair’s claim that week that engagement rather than retraction would be more beneficial to Britain. Similarly, while the personal viewpoint of William Hague was undoubtedly important, to focus on it so exclusively meant that although a fairly large proportion of the interview was devoted to the Europe question, very little ground was actually covered. And very little that was new was revealed.
The Euro - Tony Blair
The interview with Tony Blair was conducted on the Monday before polling day. Over the weekend the Today programme had carried stories of a growing Conservative backlash against William Hague’s ‘save the pound’ campaign, and that the Conservatives had appeared to have moved towards trying other strategies. As a result, European issues had slipped from the top of the news agenda. In his Newsnight interview, Tony Blair was asked only one question relating to the Euro, in a sequence lasting just over two and a half minutes.
The question related to the Chancellor’s five economic tests. Mr Paxman was primarily concerned to establish whether it would be the Prime Minister or Chancellor who would take the final decision on the holding of a referendum and if Mr Blair would ultimately be ‘rubberstamping’ a Treasury decision on the matter. Mr Blair maintained that the Treasury were the custodians of the tests, but the decision to hold a referendum would be a decision taken by the Government as a whole.
Although using the Euro as a basis, the subtext in Mr Paxman’s questions related more to the balance of power within the Labour Government than it did to the Single Currency itself. While the Chancellor is renowned for his comparative caution over the Euro, reports were re-emerging that Mr Blair had privately agreed to stand down as Prime Minister and allow Mr Brown to take over should Labour win a third term, and this matter loomed large over the exchange. This suggestion was augmented later in the discussion, with Mr Paxman proposing Mr Brown as the Prime Minister’s natural successor.
Given the prominence of the Euro in the campaign as a whole, it seems curious that Mr Paxman devoted so little time to an issue which, had the questions been well chosen, might have caused problems for the Prime Minister. In addition, the angle chosen by Mr Paxman appeared rather inconsequential compared to the larger ideological issues regarding Europe that had been raised over the course of the campaign. There were certainly many alternative veins of enquiry that might have yielded greater dividends: Mr Blair’s speech on Europe and patriotism, the Conservative claims that a referendum would be rigged, the difficulty of changing public attitudes to the Single Currency, or the inability of Robin Cook to articulate the political benefits of joining the Euro.
Conclusion
Jeremy Paxman’s contribution to political debate in this country is often vital. His technical prowess regularly unsettles media-coached MPs and slices through the political spin, making for entertaining and enthralling interviews. Yet, his combative approach is not entirely unproblematic. Foremost, Mr Paxman’s aggressive style often dominates proceedings to such an extent that his own performance becomes as important as that of the person he is interviewing. He has become a television personality in his own right, and the viewpoints of the politicians themselves can often become secondary to the vicarious thrill the audience experience through his irreverent questions and hard-nosed cynicism.In addition, there exists a clear danger that his characteristically belligerent style, rather than bringing about interviews which illuminate and inform, actually has the converse effect. Politicians, wary of his reputation, may become guarded in his presence, fearful of putting a foot wrong. As Jonathan Freedland noted in The Guardian:
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 35 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Britain's verdict on the election has been one loud snore. Who's to blame? The media are an easy target, but a deserving one. Adversarial interviews with the party leaders make great blood sport - watching Jeremy Paxman shred Hague and cow Blair is combat TV at its best - but it is having a terrible effect on our politics. The main players become so wary of getting caught out, they never dare say anything new or honest or interesting. We demand truth from our politicians but, if they ever voiced it, John Humphrys would eviscerate them before 8.15am. (The Guardian, 7th June)
This analysis has also revealed inconsistencies in Mr Paxman’s approach. To the enjoyment of Mr Freedland, but at the expense of fairness, he was more much personal in his framing of questions put to Mr Hague than he was to Mr Blair. In his treatment of European issues, he appeared stuck in one primary groove of questioning: whether the Tory commitment to the pound was for longer than one Parliament. Of course, this was an important issue, and there is no suggestion here that it was not. But Mr Paxman’s strong focus on this one line led to a disproportionate emphasis on discord in the Tory party, along well-worn paths. By contrast, he made no effort to explore (with either Labour or Conservatives) wider issues, also at play in the election, such as the pace of integration, which could have illuminated the differences of approach, and discords within, both parties.
Over the course of the campaign as a whole, the grilling of Mr Cook illustrated that Mr Paxman was just as willing to subject a Labour spokesman to a tough time as he was the Conservatives with Andrew Lansley and Tim Collins. The Cook encounter illustrated vividly Labour’s reluctance to stray from agreed party lines. But it was disappointing that Mr Cook was led into new areas of policy discussion, whereas Mr Hague, Mr Collins and Mr Lansley were all essentially asked the same thing.
On the topic of withdrawal, dealt with by the opening feature about the Paul Sykes letter, and through the interview with Nigel Farage, the treatment by Mr Paxman was distinctly out of kilter The expedient use of Matthew Taylor (instead of an official Labour spokesman), combined with Mr Paxman’s mild approach to his interview questions, meant that the extent of Euro-scepticism within the Labour party was somewhat glossed over, whereas that in the Tory party was not. And the short interview with Mr Farage suggested that the only issue of relevance to the election as far as UKIP was concerned was whether it took votes from the Tories. That was an important consideration but not the sole one.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 36 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
The General Election on Today
John Humphrys/William Hague interview ( May 17):
WH: You of all people are familiar with my position (on the Euro), because we have discussed it about a hundred and fifty times. JH: And I am still, as many people in this country are, deeply puzzled by it.
Michael Ancram (May 16):
…we’ve always said in our party there are people who take specific views on Europe and on the Euro, and we all for instance know that Peter Tapsell and Ken Clarke have had very distinct views on the Euro, they’re not going to change those, but what is important is we have a very clear position ourselves as a party, which was endorsed by the vast majority of our members, and is supported by the overwhelming majority of our candidates. That is the Party’s position, that is what we are campaigning on, and that is to be in Europe but not run by Europe, and to fight to keep the pound at this election.
Tim Franks (May 25):
And also, I think that although, clearly, there is a political desire at the very top of Labour to go into the Euro if at all possible, nonetheless I think there’s also a pragmatic realisation that that opinion has yet to be shifted and until it is, I don’t think that there’s going to be any sense, as I say, from the Labour leadership that they will be rushing into a referendum trying to bounce people into it – they just realise that the political risks are just far too great.
Today broadcast during the election period, some 85 items about European-related issues, including several bulletin leads, interviews of a range of politicians and constituency reports.
The range of speakers and interviewees who dealt with political issues related to Europe included:
Tory ministers/spokesmen: William Hague, Francis Maude, Michael Ancram, Michael Portillo, Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa May.
Candidates and senior Tories : Lady Thatcher, John Major, Stephen Dorrell, Sir Peter Tapsell, David Curry, Nick St Aubyn, Laurence Robertson, Roger Gale, Michael Howard and John Stafford from the campaign for Tory democracy. Bill Brown (candidate, Harrogate), Patrick Nicholls (candidate)
Pro –Euro Tory: Collis Gretton
Labour ministers: Tony Blair (not tackled on Europe), Robin Cook, Margaret Beckett, Michael Wilson, John Prescott and Alan Milburn (soundbite)
Labour candidates: Alastair MacDonald (Labour candidate, Harrogate) Christopher Bain (Labour candidate), Lord Parekh, Simon Murphy, MEP
Liberal democrats: – Menzies Campbell, Paddy Ashdown, John Leigh (defector from Tories) Malcolm Bruce (sounbite), Peter Willis, candidate Harrogate
From the EC: Geoffrey Martin, Jonathan Faull, Ricardo Levi (commissioner)
From UKIP: Nigel Farage, Geoffrey Titford, Paul Sykes, Viscount Paul (former Tory now UKIP)
Miscellaneous: John Gormey – Irish no campaigner, Thomas Klau, German journalist, Gerard Foukes, French MEP, Phillipe Chadannay, editor, Louise Michael Belgian foreign minister, Bob Worcester, Glynn Davies acting US ambassador. Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 37 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
This was a reasonably wide range of speakers drawn from most of the areas to be expected. Missing was any Labour Euro-sceptic input, which would have been relevant during the Paul Sykes call on May 15/16 for a withdrawal referendum. Nor was there any input from non-UK Euro-sceptic perspective, which could have added further insight into the coverage, for example, of the Jospin and Prodi speeches. There were brief interviews with the senior figures from UKIP, and one UKIP candidate, combined with occasional consideration that UKIP could take votes from the Conservatives. There were no interviews with or mention of the Euro-sceptic Green Party, though there was of the equally small Pro-Euro Conservatives.
Most of the Europe-related issues discussed and covered in the bulletins were those raised by the parties in the campaigning – on the one side, the Tory claims about tax harmonisation, and that the election as also a referendum on Europe, on the other, Tony Brown’s patriotism speech. The only significant ‘off diary’ self-generated effort and analysis appeared to be aimed at establishing the range and nature of Conservative splits on Europe, as occurred with, for example, the two interviews of Sir Peter Tapsell, the mention of defections of Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats (of John Leigh and Anthony Nelson), and an (erroneous) prediction that Theresa Gorman would defect to UKIP. It was striking that during the course of the campaign, the parallel vote in Ireland on the Treaty of Nice – which could have been used as a peg to discuss a range of issues related to further integration – was not mentioned fully until the day before the poll, and then, the correspondent involved wrongly predicted a “yes” vote in the referendum.
Interviews with Conservative politicians were aimed mainly at establishing the extent to which they were committed to opposition to the Euro – whether for one Parliament or beyond. This was the central focus of the interview of Mr Hague on May 17. He himself noted that Mr Humphrys had asked him about this issue “150 times” before. Francis Maude was also questioned on the theme during the claims about tax harmonisation on May 23. Iain Duncan Smith was asked, in the context of the Jospin speech, about tax harmonisation, qualified majority voting, and whether the election was also a referendum on Europe. Michael Portillo talked about the possibility that a referendum on Europe might be rigged, and Theresa May about whether the focus of the campaign on Europe had been correct.
Overall, the senior Conservatives were able, under cross examination, to put across, in the programme context, a range of claims about Europe – that the party was not split and accommodated a number of views about Europe, fears about tax harmonisation, the reasons for the commitment to the pound, fears about greater integration, the possibility that the referendum might be rigged. Other points put across were that it was felt that the “interference” by the EC in the arguments about tax harmonisation were unwarranted, and through Theresa May, that the campaign had been fought on the right lines and on the right issues.
By contrast, there was very little probing of the Labour party’s European policies.
The sections of interviews with senior members of the Labour party about their policy towards Europe are included as an appendix. It was put to Margaret Becket that her members were naïve if they had signed up to the Paul Sykes memorandum without checking. Robin Cook was asked whether Britain would change the rules over voting to allow tax harmonisation ,and its extension to VAT. Lord Parekh was asked whether the prime minister’s definition of patriotism was something he could fly with. Michael Wilson was asked whether Tony Blair’s engagement in Europe would limit UK sovereignty, and whether joining the Euro would lead to the ceding of some national powers. John Prescott was pushed on whether the decision on the Euro would be collective, whether he personally was keen on the Euro and whether he agreed with the five economic tests.
BBC correspondents
On Today, BBC political correspondents dealt with a number of Europe-related issues. These were important sequences of the kind being used increasingly by the corporation to explain complex political developments. As such, they were the ‘voice’ of the BBC - in which listeners could expect very special efforts to be made to achieve balance. The following major points were made:
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 38 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
• The Tories wanted to ride out on a storm of applause about what they were e saying about Europe and, the Euro and had pointed to what they saw as a secret European Commission document, which showed the Commission intended to harmonise tax rates. They also claimed that the Labour government, if re-elected, would just roll over and play dead in the face of the Commission’s plans (Franks, May 23)
• That the EC had said that the Tory claims on tax harmonisation were “complete and utter tosh”, and that the EC, if anything, was likely to bring taxes down on some high-excise tax goods (Roxborough, May 23)
• That the Conservative charge of harmonisation would be “very hard to make stick” (Franks, May 23 )
• The claim of tax harmonisation was damaging to Labour, and pointed to real divisions within the party on how far to go down the tax harmonisation route – but more damaging to the Tories was that they favoured withdrawal, as indicated by Lady Thatcher’s stance (Marr, May 23)
• Francis Maude was warning that the election was a referendum on the Euro and that the Gothenburg summit would be a step towards further integration; the Tories saw Europe as one of their great strengths and were plugging it “ad nauseam” – but there were already rumblings of discontent within the party that this was at the expense of other issues and wasn’t. delivering change in the opinion polls (Franks, May 24).
• William Hague was a man of Zen-like calm and rock like confidence, but some saw that this would work against him, because he would not change course (Franks, May 24 )
• Tony Blair would say it was okay to be pro-British and pro-European – the two were not mutually exclusive -and that Europe was not the most important issue. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats would be challenging he Conservatives to debate more about health and education, said to be the voters’ top two priorities.” (Franks, May 24 ).
• Tony Blair would delineate choices (‘he’s so fond of John’), between engagement on the one hand, and isolation, which he said the Tories would be responsible for. Also that a good patriot should be involved in Europe, and that the Tory approach would lead to business being undermined, and that their approach of renegotiating the terms of the Nice Treaty, the last inter- governmental treaty between Member States of the European Union, was code for withdrawal. (Franks, May 25)
• Labour was worried about the lack of public support for the Euro, and although, there was a political desire at the very top of Labour to go into the Euro, there was also a pragmatic realisation that that opinion had yet to be shifted. There was going to be no rush from the leadership into a referendum trying to bounce people into it – they realised that the political risks were just far too great (Franks, May 25).
• That Theresa Gorman was likely to be announcing her defection from the Tory party to UKIP (Nelson, May 25)
• Mr Jospin was not a federalist who wanted radical change, but rather some tinkering with the institutions, and saw the EU as a force for stemming the excesses of globalisation, as the French saw it, and as a force for protecting workers’ rights (Coomarasamy, May 28)
• The Tories were mustard keen to keep Europe going as an issue – with claims about the £36bn cost of joining the Euro and referendum rigging – but this left them open to Labour claims that they were a “single issue sect” (Franks, June 1)
• Cracks were beginning to show in the Tory campaign, with Stephen Dorrell saying that the focus should not be on Europe, Kenneth Clarke warning that no-one in Europe wanted a superstate, and
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 39 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Chris Patten threatening that if the Tories lost the election he and fellow Europhiles would go on the attack after June 8 (Franks, June 1 ).
• The Ecofin meeting would consider a Europe-wide tax on energy, and a modified version of the withholding tax. Gordon Brown would say that the UK was against all attempts at tax harmonisation and that taxes should be set in the UK (Charles, June 5 ).
• The Irish were likely to vote ‘yes’ in the referendum on the Nice Treaty (Carrera, June 7)
Conclusions
1. Conservative coverage: Because the Conservatives had led on Europe, Today placed a strong emphasis on examining whether the policies held up to scrutiny. This was particularly the case with claims about tax harmonisation and referendum rigging , where the welter of analysis and interviews combined to cast severe doubt on the claims.
There was also an editorial quest to examine the extent to which the Tories were united, based at first over the party line on the Euro and commitment to the EU, and then later, a related inquiry into the extent to which the Tory campaign focus on Europe was ‘working’, or, if not, leading to further discord. Into these categories at the beginning of the campaign came the interviews aimed at establishing the level of support within the party for the call by Paul Sykes for a referendum on withdrawal from Europe, featuring David Curry (who was against the referendum) and Roger Gale (for), then that of Sir Peter Tapsell, to explore why he thought the European agenda was Nazi-inspired. These were followed later with another interview of Sir Peter Tapsell, then of Lady Thatcher - revisiting that her opposition to the Euro was ‘never’ - and of Stephen Dorrell (who said that the focus of Europe had been at the expense of other issues). This area of inquiry also covered special reports from corespondents pointing out that, despite Mr Hague’s “Zen-like calm” the polls were not shifting and had led, during the course of the campaign, to increasing rumblings of discontent from a range of political opponents including Kenneth Clarke and Chris Patten. The language used in interview questions of Euro-sceptics Roger Gale and Sir Peter Tapsell was noticeably extreme, and had no comparison in questioning elsewhere within the election reporting.
Some commentators suggested that a Labour strategy during the election was to say very little about Europe, with the intention of exposing the Tories to bear the brunt of analysis in this area. Whether or not this was true, it was the case that, within the Today agenda, the Tories were scrutinised most on European issues. The focus was heavily on exposing both contradictions within the commitment to the pound, and on splits within the ‘save the pound’ policy. And, as elsewhere in the election coverage, there was no sequence which put the extent of the splits into overall context in terms of the support from within the party.
There is no suggestion here that Tory divisions on Europe were not important, or not worthy of being covered. The point is that during a general election period, if problems are claimed and editorially pursued, the full facts should be given. As it was, the impression on Today was that the Tory party was campaigning hardest on an issue that might explode at any time because of increased rumblings of discontent.
2. Labour coverage: There were a few tough questions in important areas such as the ceding of sovereignty and progress over the Euro. But these sequences were very brief (some 30’ with Margaret Beckett and John Prescott) and generally less than the equivalent sections of interviews with Tories. The overall treatment did not amount to in-depth scrutiny of Labour policies towards Europe. Tony Blair, though pushed hard on the relationship with Keith Vaz, was not asked in his Today interview about any aspect of his European policies. Nor was much space allocated to apparent lines of division (mentioned by Mr Marr) over the treatment of the Euro. Perhaps the judgement was that such questioning would have drawn a blank, and that Labour was being pushed in other areas of policy. If so, the assumption led to an imbalance in coverage, and Labour’s problems over Europe – which extended to several areas, including the timing over the referendum, different levels of enthusiasm for the Euro were scarcely mentioned or explored (the exception being Andrew Marr on May 23, though he immediately said that the Conservative problems over withdrawal were more important).
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 40 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
3. Correspondent coverage: Correspondents dealt with several important areas of the respective policies on Europe. There were some imbalances in the treatment between Labour and the Conservatives. With the Tory initiatives, as established above, the main thrust was to show that there were problems. This approach, of exposing genuine problems in policy, may have been wholly warranted, but if so, brought with it special obligations to be even-handed. With Labour, the aim on occasions appeared to be to say that the policies were acceptable, even to the extent of pointing out that Tony Blair’s stance on the Euro was not an attempt “to bounce” the electorate into it, despite Tory and UKIP claims that this was a danger. In the analysis of points made by Tories, the imbalance was starkly illustrated with the correspondents’ treatment of tax harmonisation. Here Angus Roxborough, immediately after Tim Franks had outlined the Tory claims, said that the EC had responded by describing the allegations as ‘pure tosh’. But he did not properly describe the status of the remarks as an “unofficial quote” (later mentioned by John Humphrys) or give any indication of the weight that could be given to the statement. The Tories later described the interference as completely unwarranted and wrong – but Mr Roxborough’s report did not allude at all to such room for doubt. The overall effect was to throw a large bucket of water over the Tory claims, without the presentation of sufficient countervailing information or comment. By contrast, the Tory evidence about the high cost of joining the Euro (June 1) was not explored in any depth, either in the bulletins, or by Mr Franks when he was asked to comment on the matter, leaving viewers under-informed in an area of claims where there was support for the Tories both from the author of the Chantrey Vellacott report (that was the basis of the Tory claims) and from a Treasury committee. Elsewhere - as has been pointed out above - there was strong emphasis on that the Tory campaigning on Europe was not working, not moving the polls, and on divisions within the party that suggested that withdrawal was the real agenda. Clearly, there were problems within the Tory camp, emanating from briefings behind the scenes from within the shadow cabinet (perhaps from figures such as Liam Fox, who has subsequently said there were doubts about not campaigning on health and education) and the Europhiles, and it was the programme’s duty to report them. But when outlining the problems, none of the correspondents mentioned the scale – leaving the default impression of extensive splits - nor did they bring into the equation that there had been a poll on party European policy which had won 84% support. There was no obligation to report such information. But its absence was a glaring omission.
With Labour’s one initiative on Europe, Tony Blair’s patriotism speech, the treatment by the correspondents was completely different. Tim Franks explained what the policy was, and then included that Mr Blair saw that the Tory position was code for withdrawal. He pointed out that Mr Blair was aware that the party stance on the Euro was out of tune with the electorate, but said that, this was balanced with that there were no plans “to bounce” voters to accept it. This came close to Mr Franks providing a justification of Labour policies, rather than close scrutiny of them – in effect, what Mr Blair was saying was acceptable and played well because in the area of weakness, the doubts about the Euro, the party policy covered it.
This might have been the case to some extent. But even if it was, and the electorate accepted the position, it was the job of Mr Franks to be more even-handed in its approach.
James Coomarasamy’s consideration of the Jospin speech suggested that his key concerns were about globalisation and to shore up trade union rights, and he emphasised that it was aimed at a domestic audience rather than as a contribution to the wider European debate on reform and federalism. His treatment seemed to be at odds with, and certainly did not mention, the views of Euro-sceptic commentators, who saw that the reverse was the case – that Mr Jospin was working in parallel, if not in concert with, Mr Schroeder in wanting to boost the powers of Europe in a multitude of areas. This was an opportunity to explore the differences in approach to Europe based on the differing interpretations of the Jospin message; it was not taken by Mr Coomarasamy. Later in the programme, the Jospin speech was considered in more depth in interviewees who included Iain Duncan Smith. But the point here is that Mr Coomarasamy’s analysis – being an overview – should have incorporated different strands of opinion. It did not.
With Jonathan Charles’ discussion of the prospects for the Ecofin meeting on June 5, a different issue came into play. The meting was not, strictly speaking, part of election coverage, as it was a scheduled government-attended meeting. But central topics – tax harmonisation and the re-kindling of the debate
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 41 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______over withholding tax – were firmly on the election agenda, and as such, the need was for balanced interpretation of the likely outcome and agenda. This did not happen.
These are extracts:
Gordon Brown will make it clear that he still believes all taxes should be set in the United Kingdom and not in Brussels.
But it’s (withholding tax) still on the agenda, and the European Commission is involved in another dispute with Britain over this, because before it properly implemented this Withholding Tax - which would mean everyone would have to pay a minimum tax on savings - they have to have discussions with other areas outside the European Union, places which are in effect tax havens, places like Switzerland. Now the European Commission says it wants to negotiate with these countries, Britain says it doesn’t believe the Commission should negotiate, that it should be national governments including the United Kingdom who negotiate – so plenty of scope for clashes today.
Well, the European Commission as a rule is trying to move away from the idea of general harmonisation of taxes – it recognises there’s an awful lot of opposition to this in some countries, including of course, the United Kingdom: they’ve been left in no doubt of that by Mr Brown over the last few months. But on the other hand, there are still specific measures, like the energy tax, where it does want to harmonise, and it intends pressing ahead.
And this was the bulletin piece by Mr Charles:
The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, will tell his fellow European Finance Ministers in Luxembourg this morning that Britain will resist an attempt to harmonise energy taxes across Europe. The European Commission insists such a tax is necessary to persuade businesses to cut their use of power. From Luxembourg, here’s our Europe business correspondent, Jonathan Charles.
JONATHAN CHARLES: The Chancellor intend telling the Luxembourg meeting he’ll be putting Britain’s interests first. Gordon Brown will argue there’s no possibility of his agreeing that the European Union should have more power to set levels of tax. With an election just two days away, Mr Brown knows he has no alternative but to take a tough line, any sign of weakness would be seized upon by the Conservative Party which claims frequently that Labour won’t stand up for Britain’s interests in Europe. The Finance Ministers will debate a proposal that the EU should harmonise taxes on the energy that businesses use. The European Commission wants a minimum Europe-wide level of tax on fuels, as part of an energy saving plan. Although the European Commission is now more pragmatic about the opposition to tax harmonisation in general, it still wants to press on with some specific measures. There’s plenty of scope for further clashes with Britain during the months ahead.
Essentially, what Mr Charles reported was the Labour party hand-out line that it would stand up rigorously against all efforts to put tax harmonisation on the agenda. He mentioned briefly in the bulletins the Tory perspective, but this went nowhere near balancing what amounted to piece of government puffery: that Mr Brown, despite the fears of the Tories, would stand firm and act tough. It was remarkable, after the claims by Labour of a “victory” on the withholding tax the previous June in Feira, that it was still on the agenda, yet there was no analysis of why this had come to pass, or of the Euro-sceptic fears that such moves were characteristic of the Commission’s approach. Given that polling was just two days away, this was a skewed piece of reporting. Labour’s claims of standing firm were an important ingredient of the Ecofin agenda, but not the only point, as the treatment here largely implied.
The uneven treatment by correspondents of the two parties was also evident in items written for the bulletins by Sean Lay (May 23) about tax harmonisation, and by Tony Blair’s speech (May 25).
This is what he said about tax:
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 42 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
The European Commission will this morning discuss a draft document on tax policy in the EU. The Conservatives claim it shows that other European countries favour harmonisation of income tax, which could force Britain to increase its taxes to bring them into line. Labour says its manifesto rules out varying income tax, or extending VAT to products like food and children’s clothes, The party insists that it will maintain Britain’s veto on tax policy. At present, changes in this area can only proceed with unanimous support from all the EU countries. Sources in the commission say that the tax debate has actually been won by those who oppose harmonisation and that their policy will support different rates of tax as a way of encouraging competition, a view Gordon Brown is likely to support. The Conservatives themselves are facing questions over Europe after Lady Thatcher said she would never vote for Britain to join a Single Currency. This goes further than the official party line, which is to rule it out only for the next Parliament. The Liberal Democrats say she has exposed deep divisions within the Conservative party.
The main drift of the piece was that the Conservative claims – though they were mentioned - were unfounded, on the basis of what the EC and Labour said. There was no elaboration of the Conservative arguments, and their claims were also juxtaposed with “questions” over European policy. There was not attempt to explain how important or otherwise Lady Thatcher’s views were, and the implication that the official party campaigning line was under threat, was followed by the assertion from Liberal Democrats that she had exposed “deep divisions”.
Sean Lay’s report about Tony Blair’s speech had a very different construction:
The Prime Minister is adopting a new approach to the General Election campaign by going on the offensive over Europe. Until now, it’s been the Conservatives who have been keen to raise Europe as an election theme. But in an interview with this morning’s Financial Times, Mr Blair addresses the issue of the Single Currency directly, and says he’s confident Labour could win a ‘Yes’ vote in a Euro-referendum. Mr Blair will continue the theme of Europe in speech in Edinburgh this afternoon, arguing that taking a strong leadership role in Europe is the best way for Britain to express its patriotism. The Conservatives say that it’s their keep the pound campaign which has forced Europe onto the election agenda for the other parties. Our political correspondent Sean Lay reports.
SEAN LAY: Until now in this campaign, the Prime Minister has kept clear of the debate on the Single Currency, preferring to concentrate on Britain’s role in Europe. But, in an interview in the Financial Times, Mr Blair says he’s confident he could persuade voters in a future referendum to support Britain’s entry into the Single Currency, despite opinion polls suggesting a majority of people are against it. He says it can be done ‘provided you make the argument well, and show how it’s in Britain’s interest’. In his first major speech in the election about Europe, Mr Blair will say it’s patriotic to be actively engaged in the European Union, because Britain’s best interests are served that way. He’ll accuse the Conservatives of isolationism, saying their approach could cost British jobs. The impact the strong pound has had on exporters is one of the arguments used by those who favour joining the Euro. The Liberal Democrat Charles Kennedy will today blame the exchange rate with other European countries for job losses in manufacturing, agriculture and tourism.
This was an important speech by Tony Blair, and this report was aimed only at saying what was in it, with only one very limited suggestion that there was opposition to it. There was no attempt to analyse how it might be received within his own party, or, beyond a very short section, why the Tories might see the position very differently. The programme did subsequently submit the speech to some scrutiny, principally the following day with interviews of Paddy Ashdown and Michael Wilson, but the contrast in the treatment of the two initiatives on Europe could not have been more striking.
A further issue in the approach of BBC correspondents was the narrow perception that UKIP was a problem entirely for the Conservatives.
On May 14, for example, Sarah Nelson, in a report from the Harrogate constituency, observed:
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 43 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Norman Lamont famously did the chicken run here four years ago, in the mistaken belief that Harrogate and Knaresborough would be a sure thing for the Tories. But the Liberal Democrats won here, and are now defending a majority of just over 6000. What could tip the balance is the decision of the UK Independence Party to field one Ben Brown. He’s relaxed about taking votes from the Conservatives, even although that could help the election of a more Euro-friendly Lib Dem.
On May 25, from Teignbridge, Edward Stourton said:
‘282 votes needed to win’ say the Liberal Democrat’s posters. I met their candidate Richard Younger-Ross along the Teignmouth Pier. In such a very tight race, any votes the Tories lose to the UK Independence Party could be decisive, and could in fact deliver the seat to him. Do you go to bed every night sending up a quiet prayer of thanks to the UK Independence Party?
These two statements underlined clearly the way that, on Today, UKIP was treated by correspondents as a one-dimensional threat to Conservative votes. There was no suggestion or examination on the constituency reports that it might also be a threat to the Liberal Democrats or Labour. And when Labour or Liberal Democrat interviewees claimed that Europe was a vote winner for them, this also was not challenged, as in this extract from Sarah Nelson:
Alistair McDonald is the Labour candidate.
ALISTAIR MCDONALD: People in Harrogate and Knaresborough take a very pragmatic view towards the Euro. My experience on the doorstep is that people obviously are supportive of it, because they realise that their jobs depend on being part of the European Union and being part of the Eurozone. And certainly businesses are very much wanting to be part of the Euro, because it has enormous business sense in terms of lower transaction costs, and potentially lower interest rates as well.
SN: Out knocking on doors, the Liberal Democrat candidate Phil Willis believes the Tories are in such a mess over Europe it’s inevitable the UKIP candidate will benefit.
PETER WILLIS: I think inevitably, he’s going to draw more Tory support than Liberal Democrat support. But of course, when you have a Tory Party which has got an incredible position of saying ‘we’re only going to save the pound for one term’, it’s inevitable that people who feel passionately about this issue are then going to turn to UKIP. And I understand that.
4. UKIP/withdrawal coverage: The Today programme covered UKIP through brief interviews with two of its leaders, who were able to put across that their policy was of appeal to Euro-sceptics across the party spectrum, against questioning which put it to them that they could be seen as “anti-European” (firmly denied), and that their support, despite winning seats at the European elections, was “absolutely minuscule”. The programme also considered the withdrawal case through two interviews with Paul Sykes – about his newspaper ad claiming the support for his call for a referendum on withdrawal; included both Conservative and Labour candidates – and through related interviews of Tory candidates Roger Gale and David Curry. None of the alleged Labour supporters was interviewed, though they were mentioned, and the programme issued an appeal for them to phone in. The only other mentions of UKIP came in a report from Andrew Marr, who said that “it was snapping at Tory heels”, and in reports from the Harrogate and Teignbridge constituencies, where it was said that the UKIP vote could threaten Conservative candidates. In addition, the association with withdrawal was said by Andrew Marr to be “difficult” for the Conservatives:
I think, however, what Margaret Thatcher said yesterday about ‘never’ is potent and difficult for the Conservatives at a greater extent, because there are a lot of people as it were in the wider Conservative family in the country who really have had it up to here with Europe and want out entirely. And once you start to open the door on that – and that seems to be her private view too – then, of course, the debate expands vastly beyond where it’s been in the last few years .
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 44 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Thus, the treatment overall of the UKIP/withdrawal cases on Today was in keeping with the rest of the BBC output, as outlined elsewhere in this report. Broadly, the withdrawal case was seen as being of minimal importance and on the extreme edges of UK politics: The questions put to interviewees who supported a referendum were on the lines that their position was “preposterous” and that the UKIP views had minuscule support. Those involved were given the space to rebut these claims, and it was also the case that even William Hague had described the withdrawal argument as “daft”. But despite this, Andrew Marr pointed out that the Tories were being pulled towards withdrawal, and the programme embarked on an editorial quest to speak to those among the Tories who supported it (as with Sir Peter Tapsell and Roger Gale). The Labour claims that withdrawal was the real Tory agenda were also reported prominently (as with Tony Blair’s assertion that opposition to Nice was “code for withdrawal”). As such – a weapon to discredit the Tories - the withdrawal arguments could have been treated in more neutral language, and more consideration given to why it was potentially – as Andrew
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 45 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Appendix 1: Main points made by BBC correspondents (Today)
May 23
Tim Franks says that the Tories want to ride out on a storm of applause on Europe and the Euro; but today they are trying to bring to the forefront secret European Commission document, which shows that the Commission fully intends to harmonise tax rates, including zero rated goods and income tax. The Conservatives say “the Labour Government, if re-elected, would just roll over and play dead in the
Angus Roxborough says a Commission insider has called the Conservative’s claim ‘complete and utter tosh’ and another Commission insider says the British view on Tax is prevailing.
Mr Franks says of the document: “it does say it would like, for example, as far as indirect tax is concerned, to see greater coordination, because in the Commission’s view it would work towards smoothing the Single Market – and that’s something of course that Labour would like to see as well. And because of that the Conservatives say there is some meat here, but. . . I think for them to say that Labour is pledged to tax harmonisation will be a very hard charge to make stick.”
Angus Roxborough comments: ““Well, yes, I think this document says, as regards VAT and excise duties, that the European Union should continue to work on reducing ‘distortions’ as it puts it of competition. But as one source put this to me last night, this could be in the United Kingdom’s favour – because if we’re talking about raising minimum levels of VAT, for instance, and excise duties, while Britain anyway has much higher levels, then that would help, for instance, to reduce the risk of smuggling cigarettes, for instance, from countries where excise duties are lower.”
Andrew Marr Marr “I think these tax harmonisation rows cause Labour some problems. This particular one may well have been overcooked, but there is no doubt that there is an agenda over time, which Labour, if re- elected is going to have to confront. And I think what’s very interesting is there are now quite real divisions inside Labour about how far to go down the tax harmonisation route. Gordon Brown at the Treasury has fought a very, very tough series of rearguard actions and seems to be making headway. But there are other people inside Labour and of course in the Lib Dems, who are much more integrationist. I think, however, what Margaret Thatcher said yesterday about ‘never’ is potent and difficult for the Conservatives at a greater extent, because there are a lot of people as it were in the wider Conservative family in the country who really have had it up to here with Europe and want out entirely. And once you start to open the door on that – and that seems to be her private view too – then, of course, the debate expands vastly beyond where it’s been in the last few years.” John Humphrys asks Marr whether this would help the Tories get their vote out. He replies: “Well, they’ve got UKIP, you see, snapping at their heals, and there are enough pro-European, Europhile heavy hitters left in the Tory Party just, you know, people like Ken Clarke, Ian Taylor and so on, they don’t want to lose them during a General Election campaign. Perhaps William Hague’s greatest service to his Party in the last few years was constructing this very careful compromise to hold it together on Europe. Margaret Thatcher from one side, and the Europhiles from the other are constantly tugging, trying to break it apart. If they lose this election it probably will break apart, but for now it’s desperately important for
May 24
Tim Franks discusses a speech to be made today be Francis Maude. “He’s going to be saying that June 7th isn’t just going to be a referendum on the Euro – which is a line the Tories are playing very hard, about the import of the General Election – but that . . . the Gothenburg summit . . .will be the next move towards European integration, unless a Conservative Government is returned.“
He then tells how Tony Blair also plans a speech on Europe the following day. “Yes, he is. that he’s going to be plugging his line, which is: it’s okay to be pro-British and pro-European – the two Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 46 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______are not mutually exclusive. But in the meantime, Mr Blair will be saying that Europe, although it’s important, it’s not the most important issue, and both Labour and the Liberal Democrats will be trying to challenge the Conservatives to debate more about health and education, which we’re told are the
John Humphrys asks why the Tories want to keep Europe at the top of the agenda, and whether it will disappear in a few days time. He replies that the Tories see Europe as one of their great strengths, as the opinion polls show “the vast majority of the British people are against entry into a Single Currency, and therefore that chimes with the Conservative message. The other point is that all election strategists of whatever political stripe will tell you that if you think you’ve got a message that does resonate, then you carry on banging away at it, ad nauseam, because it’s the one that’s going to stick with the voters.”
John Humprhys asks: “But to the exclusion of others?” Mr Franks responds: “Where that’s where you get rumblings of discontent within the Conservative Party – at the moment only quiet rumblings, but rumblings nonetheless, because the polls don’t seem to be shifting, some of the people I’ve been talking to, and indeed, some of the people inside Central Office, quietly, are saying, ‘right the strategy hasn’t really delivered, according to the opinion polls so far, we know that we’re playing to our strengths, but perhaps now we do have to start casting our net a bit more widely and start to move onto those key issues of health and education’.
He ends with a look at William Hague, who he says has “rock-solid Zen-like calm and confidence, and nothing will shake him.”, but some might see this as working against him, because “perhaps he’s not as open to moves and to suggestions and to changes of direction as perhaps others might be.”
May 25
Tim Franks gives details of what the speech will contain: “He’s going to be delineating choices that he’s so fond of John, between engagement on the one hand, and isolation, which he says the Tories will be responsible for; leadership and sulking on the sidelines. He says that a good patriot should be involved in Europe, and the Tory approach would lead to business being undermined, and that their approach of renegotiating the terms of the Nice Treaty, the last inter-governmental treaty between Member States of the European Union, is code for withdrawal.” Blair has given an interview to the Financial Times in which he says that of course it is possible to persuade people of the merits of the Euro, and he will say that only Labour will give the people a choice, through the referendum.
John Humphrys comments: “What we don’t know is how worried people are about it, as far as the election campaign itself is concerned, as far as how they are going to vote is concerned.”
Mr Franks replies, “Yes, people are worried about the Euro, people are, by and large against the Euro, the polls suggest that that hasn’t shifted very much. Even the last opinion poll, which again suggested that Labour had a fairly comfortable lead over the Conservatives, put people I think it was 73% against the Single Currency. But Labour sincerely believes that it has the safety-valve necessary, which is the offer of a referendum. And also, I think that although, clearly, there is a political desire at the very top of Labour to go into the Euro if at all possible, nonetheless I think there’s also a pragmatic realisation that that opinion has yet to be shifted and until it is, I don’t think that there’s going to be any sense, as I say, from the Labour leadership that they will be rushing into a referendum trying to bounce people into it – they just realise that the political risks are just far too great.”
John Humphrys asks: “Europe’s not going to stay at the top – if it is at the top – of the campaign agenda though is it?
Tim Franks responds that it is funny that Labour are moving onto Europe, seen as a Conservative strong point, while conversely, the Tories are moving onto education.
May 25
Sarah Nelson says that Theresa Gorman is being named as a defector from the Conservative Party, but this has to be taken with a pinch of salt as UKIP have promised defections in the past and failed to deliver.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 47 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
John Humphrys notes that there are some former Tories backing the party.
Sarah Nelson responds: “Yes they do. Roger Knapman, a former Tory whip has joined UKIP and is standing as a candidate, Charles Wardle the former Home Office member went over recently, and is now supporting the UKIP candidate. So they have garnered support from senior Conservatives, and there’s no reason to think they might be hyping up events today – they certainly are talking about this
May 26 Nicholas Jones is asked about Europe being a big story in the nationally “The Conservatives I think have been encouraged by what they believe was a tactical mistake by Labour. They said that Tony Blair’s very strong prediction that he believed that he could win a referendum on the Euro, has I think given Mr Hague the opportunity that he wants. Now, out in the real world today, away from the television studios and radio studios where the campaign has been fought for so long, out in shopping streets up and down the country, the Conservatives are going to be giving out keep the pound leaflets, stickers, car badges, mouse-mats for computers, you name it – that’s what you’ll be able to get in the high street, and it’s the opportunity for the Conservatives to build up interest in the campaign. “
May 28
James Coomarasamy explains what will be contained within Jospin’s speech: “Well, I think he’s going to press what are really his goals for his Socialist Government, he’ll want them to be more and more on the European stage, he’ll be talking about the EU as a force for stemming the excesses of globalisation, as the French see it, and as a force for protecting workers’ rights. I don’t think he’ll be talking about any overhaul of the institutions, such as we saw the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder propose last month. Mr Jospin is not a federalist, he’s not someone that wants radical change, he wants, perhaps, some tinkering with the institutions, but he is going to be talking more about these practical steps – that’s certainly what his Socialist Government believes, and he believes there should be more of it on a European scale.
Mr Coomarasamy also says that Jospin hasn’t yet made a speech on Europe in the four years he’s been Prime Minister, and so it will be eagerly awaited, and the speech will be seen as part of his campaign to become President of France in a year’s time.
Tim Franks is asked if the Tories are anxious to keep Europe going as an issue. He replies: “The Tories are very anxious to keep Europe going, they’re saying that they believe that the cost of converting to the Single European Currency could be as high as £36 billion, which was the top estimate put out by a firm of accountants earlier, which the parliament’s Trade and Industry Select Committee said might possibly be the case, but the Government hasn’t really entered into the debate. The Tories also saying that any referendum on the Euro would probably be rigged. Labour is looking at the Lottery and the New Opportunities fund, saying that poorer communities across that country have not really benefited from the Lottery in a proportionate way, and so they’re distributing £150 million across fifty deprived areas, and the Liberal Democrats are looking at that much neglected issue of the environment, which everybody says that they care about – or politicians say that they care about – but nobody really seems to discuss during this election campaign.”
He is then asked if the politicians are going to run out of issues: “I don’t think they’ll run out of issues, certainly as far as the Conservative Party is concerned, for example, they’re absolutely mustard keen to keep the Euro and Europe going as hard and as long as possible, so that will be one issue that they think has got plenty of juice left. And indeed, as far as the other parties are concerned, and in particular Labour, they say, ‘well that’s just fine, because it just goes to show that there aren’t simply choices within issues’ – for example, as far as the Lottery is concerned, they say that the Conservatives are committed to abolishing the New Opportunities fund, which is there for deprived areas – but between issues. They say that the very fact that the Conservative Party wants to concentrate so singularly on Europe goes to show that they are, in their words, ‘a single issue sect’.”
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 48 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
June 1
John Humphrys refers to a Guardian report which says Conservative cracks are beginning to show over Europe.
Tim Franks responds: “Well, we had Stephen Dorrell on the programme a few days ago, Tuesday, where he was saying that Europe threatened to overshadow the other issues that the Tories should be campaigning on. Yesterday, Nick St Aubyn, who’s an education specialist, as well as a parliamentary aide to Michael Portillo, said that education policies ought to be shouted from the hilltops, and perhaps that message wasn’t getting through as clearly as it could do to voters on the doorsteps, who were saying that education was one of their top priorities. And now, according to the Independent, there’s been a tape of a meeting that Ken Clarke gave, it was a meeting with other candidates in his Nottingham constituency, in which he pointed out that the referendum was the best way to sort out what should happen on a single currency, and you shouldn’t confuse that with a General Election.” He continues: “up to now he’s been very careful not to stir the pot. He’s been saying that he’s not going to be saying anything until well after the election – and indeed, most of the other pro-European Tories have been saying exactly that. Partly because they don’t want to be accused of disloyalty, and partly, privately, they want any blame for how the election goes - and most of them are fairly pessimistic about the election - to be heaped in one direction.”
John Humphrys asks about Chris Patten. Franks replies: “Well, Chris Patten, again, we’re also told, the European Commissioner and former Chairman of the Conservative Party, and of course very pro- European, we’re also told that he will be speaking after the election as well – up to now, he’s been taking a monastic oath of silence.
Mr Humphrys: “Hmm, and what’s he going to say? I suppose he’s going to say, if all your fault Mr Hague’ – is that the idea?”. Franks agrees with this, and they move onto a discussion on William Hague’s warnings of a Labour landslide.
June 5
Jonathan Charles: “one of the items on the agenda is a European Commission idea for a pan-Europe tax on energy use by businesses. The European Commission is quite keen on this, it believes it is important to have an energy saving plan in order to make businesses think more carefully on how they use fuels – and one way to do that is to make sure you have a minimum Europe-wide tax. The Germans are also very keen on this, but Britain is not so keen, Gordon Brown will make it clear that he still believes all taxes should be set in the United Kingdom and not in Brussels.
Sarah Montague mentions the Withholding Tax, and notices it is back on the agenda, after Britain claimed a victory on it. Jonathan Charles responds: “Well, basically, what’s happened with this is that countries now have a choice – if they want to have a Withholding Tax they can do, or they can swap information between tax authorities as to who paid what tax where. So if you’re a German, for example, trying to avoid tax by putting your money in London, the British authorities will tell the German authorities whether you’ve paid tax or not. But it’s still on the agenda, and the European Commission is involved in another dispute with Britain over this, because before it properly implemented this Withholding Tax - which would mean everyone would have to pay a minimum tax on savings - they have to have discussions with other areas outside the European Union, places which are in effect tax havens, places like Switzerland. Now the European Commission says it wants to negotiate with these countries, Britain says it doesn’t believe the Commission should negotiate, that it should be national governments including the United Kingdom who negotiate – so plenty of scope for
Sarah Montague asks if there is going to be pressure to harmonise other taxes. Charles responds: “Well, the European Commission as a rule is trying to move away from the idea of general harmonisation of taxes – it recognises there’s an awful lot of opposition to this in some countries, including of course, the United Kingdom: they’ve been left in no doubt of that by Mr Brown over the last few months. But on the other hand, there are still specific measures, like the energy tax, where it does want to harmonise, and it intends pressing ahead. And whichever Government is formed after Thursday’s General Election in Britain, there’s no doubt that there are going to be clashes on this over
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 49 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
June 7
Gordon Carrera explains the referendum: “for Nice to take effect and for the European Union to be able to enlarge, all fifteen countries need to ratify the Treaty, and Ireland is actually the only country which is holding a referendum and putting the issue to the people, so if they were to reject it today, then there would have to be some sort of renegotiation. There’s a deadline of 2002, so the vote could be put back again to the Irish people if there was a ‘no’ vote, with some kind of sweetener, but ultimately they have to say ‘yes’ – or the Nice process and the whole process of enlargement risks falling apart.
Edward Stourton asks if there is any chance of a ‘no’ vote. vote on a European Treaty was in 1998 on the Amsterdam Treaty here, and there was a 60% ‘yes’ vote, and the feeling here is that it’s going to be less than that – it still will probably be a ‘yes’ vote, but it may be as close as 55-45. And what’s been interesting is that the ‘no’ vote has been really gaining ground during this campaign, much to the frustration of many members of the Irish establishment, who’ve been all lined up pretty much on the ‘yes’ side.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 50 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Appendix 2: Labour interviews about Europe (Today)
Margaret Beckett interview
May 15
Well, I thought there were some fairly strange names . . .
JH: Well two have admitted.
MB: Well, yes – and obviously there are people in the Labour Party who take that view, and it’s perfectly reasonable that they should and it’s never been a secret. But I gather that most of them have said that they didn’t sign anything that they understood to be committing themselves to anything of the kind. So I think it’s a bit of a scam quite honestly and a bit of a cover for what is clearly a big problem they’ve got with it in the Tory Party, where William Hague says he doesn’t mind if any of them, half the Tory Party signs up to the idea of us leaving Europe; which, when we’ve got something like three and a half million jobs at stake, through our membership of the European Union is quite an extraordinary stance to take.
JH: But if you’ve really got seven of your lot signing, that’s a lot, isn’t it?
MB: Well, no, that’s not what they were signing.
JH: Or are they too daft to know what they signed? Or what.
MB: I think you’ll find that they signed something that they thought was committing themselves to say, ‘well yes you should have a referendum on Europe’ and some of them apparently amended it to say, ‘yes of course we’re going to have a referendum on the Euro.’
JH: Gosh, how naïve.
MB: Well, listen John, we’re having a General Election, and during the General Election we’re all candidates and you get a million pieces of demanding that you state your position on this, state your position on that, state your position on yogic flying. And you know some people try not to fill them in, and some people think, ‘yes, it’s a democratic process, I’ll give people this information’, and sometimes you find it’s not been done in good faith.
JH: Margaret Beckett, thanks a lot.
May 23
Can I start with you Mr Cook? This memo that we have this morning, it’s going to cause you a few problems if it encourages people to believe that we are going to move further towards tax harmonisation in Europe.
ROBIN COOK: Yes, but the document doesn’t do that at all John, and in fact I heard your own BBC correspondent from Brussels describing, a Commissioner stating it was complete and utter tosh, the Conservative claims.
JH: That was the spokesman? But he was not . . . sorry, that was a contact that he spoke to.
RC: A spokesman from inside the Commission, and I would say that I’ve been in touch with our own representatives over in Brussels, and they say that actually this document shows the Commission moving away from harmonisation and that we are winning the argument for tax competition and away from harmonisation. Do remember, that it’s only five months ago that we did actually secure the veto on taxation at the Nice Summit. The Conservatives said we wouldn’t
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 51 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______do it, we did do it. The Commission are not proposing harmonisation, if they did, we would not agree to it.
JH: Let me read you just a bit of what it says: ‘while it remains the Commission’s view that a move to Qualified Majority Voting, at least for certain tax issues, is indispensable, the legal basis will, for the present, remain unanimity.
RC: Well, it is unanimity at the present time, we have no intention of changing it – it can only be changed if we and the other countries who resist it such as Sweden and Ireland were to agree to it, and we’re not going to do so. But, you know, the great irony here John, is that the only party that actually did harmonise VAT was the Conservative Party. They were the ones who brought VAT onto gas and electricity, they were the ones who widened the VAT base, and they were the ones who, at the time, used the European argument. But the real story today is not a fanciful interpretation of document, which actually shows it’s winning the argument, the real story today is that Mrs Thatcher was invited down to Plymouth to rescue William Hague, and instead of rescuing William Hague, Lady Thatcher sunk his European policy.
JH: Well, let me turn to Francis Maude, but first on the question of the document, nothing in it says Robin Cook.
Later…
Okay, I want to come to Lady Thatcher in a moment, but Robin Cook, that second paragraph that Francis Maude read out there: ‘the Committee should now consider the use of alternative instruments’ – I mean that sounds a bit sinister doesn’t it?
RC: There’s no way in which the Commission or anyone else could harmonise Income Tax by some sort of back door. It does require unanimity.
JH: Income Tax you said there.
RC: Income Tax, or indeed any of the other taxes.
JH: What about VAT?
RC: On VAT we have made it quite plain, in our manifesto, it is a commitment that we will not allow the extension of VAT, and as I say, actually the Government that did allow an extension of VAT was the Conservatives. So it’s a bit rich of them now to raise this as a scare story and it does show just how desperate they are. But if Francis Maude going to talk about credibility, he has now got to explain what credibility does the assurances he was giving me and television viewers only last Sunday, that the Conservative pledge on the Euro was for only five years, after five years, if circumstances were different, they might confront reality and take economic considerations into account. Now that’s not what Lady Thatcher said yesterday. Who leads the Tory Party? Is it William Hague, or is it Lady Thatcher? And will William Hague have the courage to tell her she’s wrong, and if he does so, how many in his Party really agree with her rather than him?
JH: Well, Francis Maude, would you like to tell us seeing as William Hague isn’t here, would you like to tell us that she is wrong?
FM: Well, only Robin Cook could believe that Lady Thatcher saying she would never join the Single Currency is somehow groundbreaking earth shattering news.
May 26
Lord Parekh
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 52 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Let me bring in Lord Parekh now, Bikhu Parekh. Do you think that the attempt by the Prime Minister to define a new type of patriotism is one he can fly with – will the electorate buy it?
BIKHU PAREKH: Well now, that one wouldn’t be able to say, because tha prediction, but I think what the Prime Minister is saying is absolutely right, I mean, there is no choice. What I think he is doing, basically, is to outline what he calls a modern view of patriotism. I mean, here is Britain faced with two important challenges: within the country, devolution to Scotland and Wales, outside deeply engaged with the world community through global justice and other things, with Europe with NATO. And he’s saying, in this kind of profoundly altered historical context, what does it mean to be British? What does it mean to be patriotic? And I think he’s absolutely right to suggest that we’ll have to define patriotism in such a way that we can live with internal difference – Scotland and Wales and Westminster, and that we can also play an actively important part in Europe and share our sovereignty. I mean, I don’t understand this idea of saying that if we belong to an organisation, whether it’s the European Union or any other, our sovereignty is compromised. Because it’s not a zero-sum game, sovereignty’s not something you have or you don’t have, it consists of a cluster of powers, you give up some in order to gain others.
May 26
Michael Wilson
JN: Well, I’m joined on the line by Michael Wilson , who in the last parliament was given by some of the newspapers the title of ‘patriotism envoy’, it wasn’t an official job title, Mr Wills, but you’re obviously taking an interest in these matters on the Prime Minister’s behalf and on the Government’s behalf. How do you square the circle here, because clearly in many people’s
MICHAEL WILSON : Well, I think with anything as important as our national identity, and with something which is such a strong emotion as patriotism, you’re always going to get contested views of it. And I think what the Prime Minister was setting out yesterday was a bold and confident, and outward looking view of patriotism; contrasted with what we would see as a rather negative and shrinking and frightened view, put forward by the Conservatives under William Hague. Now inevitably, there’s going to be a contest between these two visions, and we were setting out our stall very clearly, in a bold and confident speech by the Prime Minister – and I have no doubt what the British people will prefer in the end.
JN: Well, the opposition view, surely, is that patriotism involves protection of the control of your own national destiny. And the argument is with respect to the Euro, that that control is going to be ceded in some way to some greater external power. Do you accept that you have to tackle that fear in the minds of many people if you’re re-elected and you try to get us into the Euro.
MW: Well, two things I would say in response to that. Firstly, I would define patriotism as being above all the promotion and enhancement of the national interest, I mean, that must be the starting point, if you love your country, you want the best for your country and that must be the starting point – you can move to the other issues once you’ve established that, that’s the first point. The second point is that since the end of the Second World War, for over fifty years, this country as proceeded, as all its partner countries have, by pooling sovereignty in certain crucial areas.
JN: As in NATO for example?
MW: We did, we did with NATO for example, we did when we joined the European Union, it’s a fact of modern life, that you enhance and protect your national interest in a difficult and uncertain world, by pooling your sovereignty. It doesn’t mean you give up control of your national destiny, in fact, in many ways, as the Prime Minister’s been arguing, you actually enhance and protect it by sharing with other people, and that must be the way forward.
JN: Except that those who oppose membership of the Euro, at least on some grounds, those who oppose membership of the Euro would say, ‘if you give up control of taxation and the ability
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 53 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______of parliament to raise funds and dispense them as it wishes, to the extent that would be inevitable if we joined the Euro, then we would have ceded too much control’ – it’s a question of where you draw the line.
MW: Well, of course, it’s always a question of where you draw the line in any matter of public policy. But I mean I should just make this key, critical point. Our position on the Euro is well established and well known. And in the end, of course there’ll be conflicting views on it, but our position is clear: if the five economic tests are met, so it’s established that it is in the British national interest to join, and we set out those tests very clearly, we set them out in 1997, we haven’t deviated from then since, only then will there be a decision made about the Euro.
JN: (attempts to interrupt) Do you believe . . . .?
MW: And then the Government will not make that decision, the British people will make that decision in the referendum – it’s an important decision, and therefore it’s right that it’s the British people who should, in the end, make that decision.
JN: If you are re-elected, if Mr Blair is re-elected, do you believe that he will have a referendum in the course of the next parliament and that it can be won?
MW: If we’re re-elected, we’ve made it quite clear, in the first two years, we will conduct the tests, we will make the judgement then, and then the British people will decide.
May 29
JAMES NAUGHTIE: Let's widen it out a little bit. One of the great debates of the campaign at the moment, of course, is about the Euro – and we heard Mr Portillo about the referendum earlier on. If you are re-elected, when the time comes to decide on the economic tests, on whether the referendum is going to be held, are you confident that that will be a collective decision, and not one just taken in the Treasury?
JOHN PRESCOTT: I’m confident all Government decisions are collective decisions. That’s what Government’s about Jim, it’s what’s called Cabinet Government, of course I’m confident of that. But that Chancellor has to make a recommendation of course as to whether he thinks that criteria has been satisfied. And then at the end of the day, it won’t only be ourselves that would make a decision, Parliament would have to make one . . .
JN: Of course. So it wouldn’t be a Cabinet decision?
JP: . . .(speaking over his question) and then we’d trust in the people. At the end of the day when I go round the country, I’ve visited now 70-odd constituencies now on my battlebus . . .
JN: Your battlebus yes.
JP: . . . and I have to tell you, that that’s a question, when you say to them, ‘you will have the decision’ – it was the Labour Government who went back to the people in this country and said, ‘do you want to stay in the Common Market?’ We gave them a referendum – that is the answer to that.
JN: How keen are you on the Euro?
JP: I think we certainly have a future in Europe, that’s what the people said . . .
JN: No, no, on the Euro, on the currency.
JP: Well on the currency argument, you’ve got to satisfy the tests that have been laid down.
JN: What about the political case for membership of the Euro? You happy with that?
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 54 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
JP: Well, I’m happy to look at the assessment when it’s properly made, and we’ll make a judgement. And I think as a member of a Cabinet, and hopefully to be in the next one, that would clearly mean we’d make that assessment at that time, whether it’s political or economic, but at the end of the day, we trust the people and give them the choice. Mrs Thatcher says it will never happen; he says it’s one parliament, they’re totally divided on about every issue we’ve got .
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 55 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Appendix 3: Tory interviews about Europe
The thrust of the interviewing of the Conservatives was to ask them to justify their stance on the Euro, and to explore whether the opposition was deeper than for one Parliament. They were also asked about the reaction to the Paul Sykes call for a referendum (Michael Ancram) and to the issue of party loyalty, about the claims about tax harmonisation (Francis Maude), about whether the Jospin speech was about federalism (Iain Duncan Smith), about whether the referendum on the pound could be rigged (Michael Portillo) and whether the election focus was too narrow (Theresa May, Michael Howard).
Key claims made by the Tory shadow ministers were:
Michael Ancram: No, we’ve always said in our party there are people who take specific views on Europe and on the Euro, and we all for instance know that Peter Tapsell and Ken Clarke have had very distinct views on the Euro, they’re not going to change those, but what is important is we have a very clear position ourselves as a party, which was endorsed by the vast majority of our members, and is supported by the overwhelming majority of our candidates. That is the Party’s position, that is what we are campaigning on, and that is to be in Europe but not run by Europe, and to fight to keep the pound at this election
William Hague: No, expediency is sheer logic. Some people say, ‘you don’t have to worry about the political and constitutional risks’; I say, well let’s see what happens to all the countries who have joined the Euro over the next few years, and we will find out what happens to their political and constitutional rights to govern themselves. Now that’s why our position is to be committed to keep the pound, for the coming parliament, for the coming government, and again it is a fundamental choice being made at this election: the Conservative Party will keep the pound, the Labour Party, by hook or by crook would do away with the pound.
Francis Maude: Well, if I could just continue the quotation that you read out, when you talking about them wanting to move to Qualified Majority Voting, it goes on to say: ‘Given the difficulties in reaching unanimous decisions on legislative proposals, the Committee should now consider the use of alternative instruments as a basis for initiatives on the tax field.’ So that means, okay we can’t get it through unanimity, so we’ll find a different way of approaching it. Now the problem is, Robin Cook talks very bravely about using the veto and so on, but you can’t believe a word they say about Europe. You know, this is the Prime Minister, who just before the last election, declared in The Sun newspaper, his love for the pound; yet within months afterwards he had declared his determination to scrap the pound. So I think people will take Robin Cook’s bold protestations with a fairly large pinch of salt.
Iain Duncan Smith: He said that Jospin and Schroeder had always been clear about what they want from Europe, unlike the Labour Government. He added that Mr Jospin and Mr Schroeder “both said that they were going to press for tax harmonisation and the full social model of economics in Europe, which would be a pan-European affair. They’ve never been unclear about And, “say is that there is no need for any extra Qualified Majority Voting, we said so back in 1997, we haven’t changed it” he says that Labour will “bamboozle you, they will change the question on the Euro, and they won’t tell you how much it costs, until you find that it costs you
Michael Portillo: “…is it not extraordinary that the Government would specifically reject from the legislation governing the referendum the word ‘fair’. And I’m pleased to hear what the Electoral Commission just said, but actually, they are confined in legislation only to commenting on intelligibility. There is no provision in the legislation for it to be fair.” He talked at length about how the question could be slanted by the Government, and the wording he would like to see on any referendum.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 56 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
The General Election on PM
Jonathan Beale (May 17):
So I think there are a large number of Tory candidates in the South West, where they feel UKIP - the United Kingdom Independence Party - breathing down their necks, and they’re worried about majorities and losing votes to UKIP, who are saying a harder line on Europe than their Party leadership would like.
there are signs that Central Office want to shut this debate down, but there are candidates out there who have a harder line, and I think it is a problem for the Conservatives. It’s a problem for the other parties too, they have members and candidates who are Euro-sceptics, but it’s always been a bigger problem for the Tories, because we remember the last election – and because they perceive themselves to be a Euro-sceptic party and have a Euro-sceptic message…
PM covered most of the key Tory and Labour initiatives to put Europe on the agenda, including Tony Blair’s patriotism speech, the Tory allegations about the hidden tax harmonisation agenda of the European Commission, and about the high cost of joining the Euro, as well as the claims of the possibility that the referendum question could be skewed.
There were some riveting sequences of radio, in which claim and counter-claim were examined in- depth by Clare English and Eddie Mair as they pushed all sides as hard as they could to answer issues of concern to listeners.
The central editorial quest appeared to be to examine dissent and problems within the Tory ranks about the European Union and the Euro, against claims from its leadership (on the programme, by Francis Maude and Andrew Lansley) that the party was united and properly focused on the concerns of voters. This was the bulk of the coverage of European issues. The main examples are outlined below. The selected extracts from the programme introductions illustrate the extent of the emphasis on Tory difficulties:
A report from Falmouth & Camborne, primarily about the launch of the UKIP manifesto, which suggested as a major theme that the Tory vote (but not those of other parties)would be hit by UKIP (May 14);
A report showing that different Tory candidates were campaigning on different messages about the Euro (May 17)
…it’s not all been plain sailing for the Conservative leader William Hague either, on that thorny question of Europe. First, the Party’s ‘Keep the Pound’ anti-Euro policy was challenged by pro-European former Minister Ian Taylor who told his constituents: ‘The UK could benefit from membership of the Single Currency.’ Then a Tory candidate from the South West of England, Nick Serpell, declared that he would be making his own views perfectly clear to anyone who asks. He says that he rules out membership of the Euro forever…
Analysis of the extent to which Lady Thatcher’s ‘never’ on the pound represented a split in the party (May 23)
Labour turned the spotlight onto a split Tory party – the football analogy slogan on the television screen behind Messrs Brown, Byers and Hewitt: ‘Tory own-goal, just before half- time’. The Chancellor said that last night’s reappearance of Lady Thatcher and her ideological objection to the Euro had exposed the Tory Party as deeply divided and confused.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 57 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Examination of the battle to presented a united front against a “deafening silence” of the Europhiles within the party, and a quest to find them (May 24)
Yesterday, of course, all eyes and ears were focused on Lady Thatcher’s headline-grabbing intervention and her ‘never ever’ vow on the Euro. Since then the Tories have been battling hard to present a united front on the official policy and move on to other issues. But there’s been a deafening silence on the Single Currency row from the Europhiles in the Conservative Party. Where are they now?
Consideration of the Tory claims on the high cost of joining the Euro and the agenda of tax harmonisation, as revealed by the Jospin speech, and an interview with Sir Roy Denman in which he claimed the Tories were the “loony xenophobic right” (May 28)
An interview with Lord Brittan, who, after claiming the Tory focus and policy on Europe was wrong, nevertheless urged Conservatives to vote for the party at the election (May 29)
Well, as the parties argue it out over Europe, the voices of Tory Europe-enthusiasts have been strangely muted so far. But now, in an interview for PM, Lord Brittan has spoken out. As Leon Brittan, he was Trade and Industry Secretary under Margaret Thatcher. He went on to become Vice President of the European Commission, we asked him who had the better position, Tony Blair with his policy of engagement, or William Hague, with his desire to renegotiate the Treaty of Nice.
A report which claimed that “the rot had set in”, that Tory dissidents were wading into support non-party line policies as the Tory campaigning focus moved away from the pound and Europe (May 30)
But there are indications the focus of the Tory campaign may be changing in the face of a criticism from former ministers, and polling evidence that people rate Europe and the Euro way below other issues. The rot set in last night on PM, when the Conservative peer Leon Brittan attacked Mr Hague's strategy...the former science minister Ian Taylor waded in to say ‘only Euro-fanatics believe Europe is the issue’. Stephen Dorrell said "all the evidence is that Europe ranks lower in terms of priority, particularly for floating voters than health, education and law enforcement". Well, he could have been quoting from today's ICM Guardian poll which says pretty much that…
A brief interview with Andrew Marr which asked if the Tory strategy had “failed” (May 31)
Do you now sense Andrew that people are beginning to look at why the Tory’s attack plans have failed? They went on tax, they went on the Euro – they failed, Labour still seems to be out where it was at the beginning of this campaign.
A final examination of party strategy which focused again on that Lady Thatcher had said ‘never’ to the Euro (June 5)
Also out on the campaign trail again, Lady Thatcher – but if she’s seen as a war horse by the Tories, she’s a sitting duck for Labour. Speaking in Yardley, Tony Blair was keen to mark her out as a shadow hanging over the Tories: an unwelcome throwback to an era that had, he said, left so many behind. This election, he said, represented a chance for Britain to signal a clean break with the Thatcher years.
Mention that Business for Sterling had denied that the election was a referendum on the Euro, despite an earlier pledge that it would not get involved in the election (June 6). Also, a summary of William Hague’s campaign:
And put crudely, in almost sort of London cabby’s kind of language, he wants to save the pound, cut taxes, kick out asylum seekers and bang up criminals.
Interviews
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 58 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Senior Conservatives were interviewed on several occasions. They were given clear space to put across their claims about the European agenda and to answer the claims that the party was divided – albeit in toughly adversarial environments. With Labour, only one cabinet minister was interviewed about his own party’s policies on Europe - Robin Cook, who was asked about Tony Blair’s patriotism speech and party policy on the Euro. In addition, minister Brian Wilson was asked to react to Tory claims about referendum rigging and about the cost of joining the Euro.
The main interviews on European issues were:
Francis Maude, asked to explain why tax harmonisation was a threat. He claimed the Tories were unified on Europe, despite Lady Thatcher’s ‘never’ to the Euro (May 23).
Andrew Lansley, who defended the party against claims that Europe had been the wrong issue to campaign upon, and was creating divisions within the party (May 30)
Robin Cook, explained Tony Blair’s views on patriotism and answered whether devaluation would be required to join the Euro (May 25).
Brian Wilson, who, against Tory claims put to him by the programme, said the Chantrey Vellacott report on the cost of joining the Euro was wrong, and that there was no chance of the question in the referendum being rigged (May 28).
Stuart Wheeler, the Tory benefactor, who explained why he thought his major donation to the party was value for money, particularly in the context of the campaigning on the Euro (June 5).
Leon Brittan, who urged party supporters to vote Conservative, but said the campaign focus on Europe was wrong, and the European policies impractical with regard to renegotiation of the Nice Treaty (May 29).
Sir Roy Denman, the Liberal Democrat former ambassador, who found the election Euro debate depressing and accused the Tories of being the “loony xenophobic right” in their approach to the Euro, and Labour of being too slow in joining the Single Currency (May 28)
Ronnie Fitzpatrick, who argued that his report for Chantrey Vellacott on the £36m cost of joining the Euro was justified as a forecast, against claims that it was “not worth the paper it was written
Political analyst John Curtice, saying that claims by the Conservatives that a referendum on the Euro could be rigged were not sustained by the facts (May 28).
Others who appeared on the programme, in soundbite form, included Charles Kennedy, Simon Hughes and Alan Beith from the Liberal Democrats, Stephen Byers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from Labour, and Michael Portillo, William Hague and John redwood from the Tories. There were no soundbites representing UKIP opinion, except through a vox pop in a report from a constituency where it was deemed the party could have an impact, and none from Euro-sceptic members of parties other than the Conservatives.
Correspondents
In PM, reports by correspondents were prominent particularly in the investigation of the Tory splits. Key points made by correspondents in their analysis of the election were:
Chris Hogg May 14:
On the beach on Cornwall’s Atlantic coast this afternoon, it’s easy to feel as if you’re about a million miles from the latest party manifesto launch in London. But as the UK Independence Party’s Nigel Farrage set out its proposals in a London pub, it was clear that he had people in this part of the world firmly in his sights… The big question here is whether the UK Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 59 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Independence Party will inherit the votes cast for the Referendum Party in 1997, as well as those cast by their own supporters. Analysts suggest many who voted UKIP or Referendum last time had given up on the Tories. So how much will the Conservatives have to do to win them back?…. UKIP polled very strongly here in the European Elections, and the party feels that in this part of the world they have got a lot of support… The maths is tight here – Labour’s majority was just under 2700 last time, more than 3500 votes went to the Referendum Party and UKIP combined. That means those swing voters could decide the election in this constituency. The question is whether that opportunity is more tempting than demonstrating their support for the UKIP
Jonathan Beale May 17:
I have to say that we didn’t have to look very hard to find four in this region who were going beyond the Party line, saying they’d rule out membership of the Single Currency forever. And one, Anthony Steen has got in his literature, mention of having a referendum on membership of the European Union, possibly withdrawal. One candidate, Tim Bonner, saying that we wouldn’t scrap the pound until he could fly to France on the back of a pig. So I think there are a large number of Tory candidates in the South West, where they feel UKIP - the United Kingdom Independence Party - breathing down their necks, and they’re worried about majorities and losing votes to UKIP, who are saying a harder line on Europe than their Party leadership would like… there are signs that Central Office want to shut this debate down, but there are candidates out there who have a harder line, and I think it is a problem for the Conservatives. It’s a problem for the other parties too, they have members and candidates who are Euro-sceptics, but it’s always been a bigger problem for the Tories, because we remember the last election – and because they perceive themselves to be a Euro- sceptic party and have a Euro-sceptic message… Indeed, we had this bizarre situation today, where we were following Francis Maude with his candidate Nick Serpell, going down the high street, shaking hands with people; people coming up to him and saying, ‘well, we want to rule out membership of the Euro forever,’ – and Francis Maude saying, ‘we’d rule it out for the lifetime of the Parliament’..
Sean Lay (May 23): . With the other parties saying he’s being deliberately ambiguous over the Single Currency, Labour’s list of candidates could be an embarrassment, but Mr Hague sees no conflict between his position and Lady Thatcher’s…Labour’s list of candidates (23 in favour of withdrawal and 80 dissenting from the policy on the pound) like Mr Harris is based mainly on their comments over the last four years. Official election addresses are likely to stick firmly to the Party line. John Redwood, who’s part of the Conservative campaign team says his personal determination not to abolish the pound isn’t in conflict with official policy for this election…The Conservative Leader is determined not to repeat the problem of the last election, when John Major tried to hold all his candidates to a neutral position on the Euro. His failure led to charges of weak leadership. So, providing candidates accept Mr Hague’s policy of ‘No for the lifetime of this parliament’ they have carte blanche to say what they like about the long-term… If a referendum on the Euro has already been held by the time of the next election, the argument could be academic. If not, the ambiguity will finally have to be resolved one way or the other…Mr Hague’s coalition of ‘nevers' and ‘not for nows’ should hold, at least for this campaign.
Norman Smith(May 24):
The pro-European Tories are adopting a deliberately low profile…Here, Ian Taylor, out and about in the local high street, trying to talk about everything but Europe. Not with a great deal of success….The only answers are always diplomatic ones…Of the half dozen or so pro- Euro Tories we rung up this evening, none were available for comment. Indeed, when we contacted Kenneth Clarke’s local television station, we were told the only time he’s apparently appeared on the news during this election was more than a week ago – the subject: a local tram scheme. Indeed, the only Tories who’ve spoken out are those no longer .Sir Edward Heath, in his final Commons speech, nailed his colours to the
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 60 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
mast, as has Leon Britton. One former Cabinet Minister told PM he and his colleagues were furious about Lady Thatcher’s comments and Mr Hague’s refusal to force candidates to toe the party line. But in public, those still in front line politics will say nothing, all of which has angered pro-Europeans like John Stevens, who left the Tory Party to form his own breakaway pro-Euro party…But privately, however, the word is the battle begins on June 8th. Until then, the Party’s pro-Europeans are evidently prepared to bide their time
Sean Lay (May 26)
William Hague’s warning on the Single Currency had an almost apocalyptic ring. Campaigning in Loughborough, he unveiled a clock, counting down the days, hours and minutes until the polls close on June 7th. The Conservative Leader said that this was all the time that was left to save the pound. In a newspaper interview this morning, Mr Hague had suggested that Labour could win a ‘Yes’ vote on the Euro because it would rig the proposed referendum…. But the Conservative leadership sees Labour’s policy on Europe as the real Trojan horse. The message seems to be: beware Greeks and other Europeans bearing gifts. In a speech in Twickenham, the Shadow Chancellor, Michael Portillo, predicted that signing up to the Euro would diminish Britain’s political independence. He gave a dire warning of what that could lead to… Unlike his leader, Mr Portillo seemed more confident that in a referendum on the Euro, a majority would vote ‘no’. The danger for William Hague is that if the Conservatives are defeated in the General Election, they will already have conceded a referendum against the Euro is lost. Those are words that the other parties would throw back at the Tories again and again. .
Norman Smith (May 30)
A wet and windy morning on the outskirts of Glasgow. Hardly the sort of weather to revive Mr Hague’s spirits, but he brushed away the inevitable questions about doom and disaster, as predicted by the polls. And Mr Hague’s sense of humour, that most effective of defences for a politician under pressure appeared intact, when pressed about that advert with the Lady ‘T’ hairdo. And questions about the grumblings from Lord Brittan and others were similarly waved away. Meanwhile, back in London, to add to Tory difficulties, a little known former Conservative Minister called John Leigh announced he was joining the Liberal Democrats
JOHN LEIGH: Well, I think it is very much yesterday’s party. I think if you look at the Conservative supporters in the country and the activists, they are in the nicest way older members of the community. It’s not a party that’s appealing to the young people.
NS: And at the morning press conference there was some deft wriggling by Michael Portillo on Mr Hague’s claim that this election was the last chance to save the pound. Now, it was merely the last fair chance. From Mr Hague, not a whisker of a movement, or a flicker of an expression for us to interpret or misinterpret. But local Tories are in no doubt – it is the pollsters and the media that have got it wrong about Mr Hague. Under the circumstances, Mr Hague may not be downcast, but he does appear on the defensive.
May 31
Clare English and Andrew Marr
CLARE ENGLISH: Do you now sense Andrew that people are beginning to look at why the Tory’s attack plans have failed? They went on tax, they went on the Euro – they failed, Labour still seems to be out where it was at the beginning of this campaign.
ANDREW MARR: Even at this stage, this is an argument not yet resolved inside the Conservative Party. There are plenty of critics of what William Hague has been doing; there’s plenty of people saying, behind their hands, we should be going on health and education day after day, this concentration on the Euro is simply not working. Mr Hague and the people
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 61 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
around him are utterly unmoved by this, they are steely in their determination to carry on with their x-number of days to save the pound theme – it’s what he was talking about again in meetings I’ve been at with him today, and I think again the reason is that he feels that there is underlying movement that people are starting to hear his message about the pound, and that if he goes down, at least he goes down on the issue that matters most to him – and he would argue, to the country.
Norman Smith (June 5):
Love her or hate her, Lady Thatcher still draws the crowds. Crushed and mobbed, one admirer bobbed up and down before her, and kissed her hand. A Staffordshire Bull Terrier with a Union Jack coat shrank away before her, and a confused woman began shouting, ‘It’s ’. As for we journalists who huddled around her, we were swatted aside with disdain and a good bit of finger prodding. Here, one of my colleagues asking whether Mr Hague’s Conservatism wasn’t just reheated Thatcherism…. Pressed on Mr Hague’s prospects after Thursday, Lady Thatcher wouldn’t be drawn. ‘He’s fought an excellent campaign,’ she said. But on Europe there was no such reticence – her views as unflinching as ever.
LT: The idea that we should give up our currency for one in Europe is to me utterly repugnant. If you give up your currency, you give up control over your future. Labour may do that, but we will never do it.
NS: But though local Tories were clearly delighted with Lady Thatcher’s visit, away from the cut and thrust of marginal seats, some senior Conservatives privately questioned the wisdom of allowing Lady Thatcher such a cameo role in this election. Yes, she delights the party faithful, but among waverers and younger voters, the fear is she has the opposite effect.
Conclusions:
1. Labour: There was little examination of Labour policy on Europe, and only one brief mention that the party might have its own divisions on European policy. The only areas to be examined in any depth were (through Robin Cook), Tony Blair’s patriotism speech, the timescale for joining the Euro, and the possibility of the need for devaluation as a precursor of joining the Single Currency; then with Brian Wilson, whether the cost of joining the Euro would be as high as claimed by the Tories, and whether a referendum question could be rigged.
The interview with Robin Cook was at first purely exploratory – not the most taxing he had ever faced. The opening questions were: “Is this the kind of speech you think is going to galvanise the people who are sceptical about Europe and the Euro?”,then “how confident are you that you can win a referendum on the Single Currency?”. His response revealed some important additional detail for viewers, but rather unsurprisingly his answers were, broadly, ‘yes’, and then ‘yes’ again.
Clare English became much tougher in trying to pin down Mr Cook on the timetable for joining the Euro, then alleging there was need for a sixth economic test – devaluation – in order to join. The response from Mr Cook was to stonewall, on the grounds that a cabinet minister could not responsibly. speculate on devaluation measures. As such, it illustrated – presumably in line with the editorial aim - Mr Cook’s, and perhaps Labour’s, lack of ease in talking about European policies outside the core party line (of the five economic tests). But confidentiality was an easy (and seemingly reasonable) way of answering the most difficult questions, and it therefore seems that Ms English’s chosen battle line was both impractical and ever likely to yield more than the little blood that it did.
The interview of Brian Wilson by Eddie Mair, was on the surface, quite tough in seeking to pin him down on what the referendum question would be (against the Tory claims that it could be rigged, and challenging Labour to reveal the precise wording). Mr Mair spoke over him, and asked that he concentrate on the wording itself, rather than claims that the Conservatives were conceding defeat by raising the topic. Yet, despite the semblance of sternly pinning a minister down, this was cosmetic: he pushed Mr Wilson only as far as his initial holding position, and to a reiteration of that the question
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 62 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______could not be rigged because the electoral commission would be involved. The minister’s concluding words were:
And when the time comes, there will be, as Gordon Brown said today, an Electoral Commission, there will be the will of parliament to be expressed in this; so it’s completely premature to form wording for a referendum. We don’t know when it’s going to take place, and as I say, it only takes place if there’s a Labour Government, so why the Tories should be so worried about the wording of it, you know, short of raising the white flag, I can’t think of a clearer admission of surrender.
With the Chantrey Vellacott report claiming that the cost of the Euro could be £36bn, Mr Mair had strong ammunition – an interview, which would be broadcast later in the programme, in which the author of the report firmly maintained that its conclusions were correct and supported by a House of Commons select committee that had been chaired by Labour. Yet despite this, he did not push Mr Wilson hard at all. This was the exchange:
The estimated cost of £36 billion of joining the Euro – that’s been firmly rubbished by members of your party today, again Gordon Brown’s been talking about that, Tony Blair’s been talking about that, and yet the people, the accountants Chantrey Vellacott, told us in an interview we’re going to broadcast later, that this £36 billion figure does stand up, they are an independent firm of accountants, and in fact they released this figure 15 months ago, and some senior figures in the Labour Party though it made sense.
BW: I think there’s one absolute certainty in this, Eddie, that if this figure had any credibility, we’d have heard about it an awful lot earlier . . .
EM: (interrupting) Well, we did – 15 months ago.
BW: Hang on a second, we’d have heard about it an awful lot earlier in the election campaign. And all we’re seeing now is the Tories with absolutely nothing else going for them, and trying to sort of stir up confusion and apprehension on the question of Europe – but as I say, all in a way which presupposes their own defeat. It’s a very odd tactic for a party which is ten days away from a General Election.
In effect, Mr Wilson was allowed off the hook when he had been provided with some important ammunition to fire at him by Ronnie Fitzpatrick of Chantrey Vellacott, and the findings of the Treasury Select Committee. The response that the report was 15 months old was not an answer to the claims.
Thus, overall, PM, did very little to explore Labour policies with senior figures from the party, scarcely did so, and with Brian Wilson, arguably passed over a golden opportunity to ask some awkward questions..
In addition, none of the correspondent reports on the programme mentioned or analysed any aspect of Labour strategy. And strikingly, in an area where there was a potential peg for discussing possible divisions in the Labour camp about Europe – when John Monks of the TUC (May 29) said he wanted the European labour model, at odds with Stephen Byers – it was not taken beyond a brief mention. Another possible issue – whether UKIP would draw support from parties other than Conservatives, given the strong opposition to joining the Euro in opinion polls – was not discussed at all. And nor was there any significant mention or analysis of the importance (or otherwise) of Euro-sceptics within the Labour party. This was particularly noticeable in that Jonathan Beale (May 17) mentioned their existence. The issue was never raised again. The overall editorial approach appeared to be that, Labour policy on the Euro and the European Union, was hardly worth exploring.
2. Conservatives: By contrast, the Conservative stance and claims about Europe were subjected to in- depth scrutiny. There were a total of 11 reports which considered matters ranging from the allegations about the potential for referendum rigging, to the cost of joining the Euro. Of these, four were special PM inquiries aimed at exposing the differences within the party over European policies: the different European agendas being pursued by the candidates; the “deafening silence” of the missing Europhiles: Leon Brittan’s attack on the stance over the Euro and renegotiation of the treaties; and the examination Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 63 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______of that “the rot had set in” in the campaign on Europe. All were written and structured to draw attention to the problems facing the Conservatives. Of course, the Conservatives led on Europe and spent more time campaigning on it than Labour, and as such, invited more scrutiny. And, of course, there was scrutiny of other areas of Labour policy. But, by any standards, this was a sustained journalistic examination, and it was important that the reports were properly balanced. It was not always the case.
For example, the claims about vote rigging were examined (May 28), and soundbites from Michael Portillo and William Hague were included about them. But the main editorial thrust, through an interview with John Curtice and Brian Wilson, buttressed by a soundbites from both Gordon Brown and Simon Hughes was towards showing that such claims were unfounded. They may have been – and the claims entirely unwise - but there was room for doubt, and in order to create balance, there could have been more consideration of the Tory case.
Conversely, as has already been discussed, the claims about the high cost of joining the Euro – though fully explored with the author of the report – were not put with any vigour to Labour minister Brian Wilson. He was let off the hook in an important area of policy.
But the biggest difficulty with PM’s treatment of the Conservatives was the consistent, but never sufficiently defined, insinuation that, in effect, there was no smoke without fire, and that the level of dissent was perhaps the most important issue of the campaign. . The reported divisions of opinion over the party line were deemed editorially important enough to be the subject of repeated inquiry, but they were never properly put into context. The Conservative party senior spokesmen were given space in response to questioning to rebut the various allegations made by both their opponents and the programme’s own investigations. But what they were allowed was not sufficient to redress fully the balance. .
In addition, as is illustrated in the opening sequence, above, the language used about developments in the Conservatives’ campaigning on Europe was strong, and constantly suggestive of discord:
Do you now sense Andrew that people are beginning to look at why the Tory’s attack plans have failed? They went on tax, they went on the Euro – they failed…
Since then the Tories have been battling hard to present a united front on the official policy and move on to other issues. But there’s been a deafening silence on the Single Currency row from the Europhiles in the Conservative Party.
And put crudely, in almost sort of London cabby’s kind of language, he wants to save the pound, cut taxes, kick out asylum seekers and bang up criminals.
There was no equivalent description of Labour tactics on Europe.
3. Soundbites: Analysis of the 33 main soundbites from senior politicians included in programme items about Europe and the Euro, reveals that most (16) came from Conservatives, with eight from Labour (all but one from Tony Blair or Gordon Brown), seven from the Liberal Democrats (including from John Leigh, the Tory defector), and one each from John Stevens (Pro-Euro Conservative party), and Frits Bolkestein (European Commission). The overall split was 15 in favour of, or defending, the Tory stance on Europe (Leon Brittan was largely attacking his own side), three attacking the Labour tardiness in joining the Euro (from the Liberal Democrats) and the rest outlining the Labour policies or attacking those of the Conservatives.
¾ Of those about the Conservatives, seven were spokesmen defending against allegations that the party was split. Six were about initiatives put forward by the party (encompassing tax harmonisation, allegations of referendum rigging, moves towards a superstate and the high cost of joining the Euro). Three contained attacks on Labour policy, two about the lack of detail about the Euro and the other, a claim that the party wanted a superstate. In addition, Lord Brittan alleged that the Tory policy towards renegotiation was impractical.
¾ The biggest category of Labour soundbites was (3) Tony Blair talking about his patriotism speech. Within them, there were two specific attacks on the Conservatives (for seeing Europe as a source
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 64 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
of problems and for claiming that the special US relationship would end). A further soundbite from the prime minister was an attack on the Tory claims that tax harmonisation was on the agenda. The Gordon Brown extracts contained allegations (with numbers) that the Tory party was split, and rebuttals of Tory claims about the high cost of joining the Euro and that the referendum could be rigged. Stephen Byers also made allegations that the party was split.
¾ The Liberal Democrat sequences contained attacks by Charles Kennedy and Alan Beith complaining that the Labour party was being too slow in its progress towards joining the Euro. Charles Kennedy attacked the Conservatives for being divided over Lady Thatcher’s pledge of ‘never’ to the Euro, and also alleged that, despite the Tory emphasis on Europe, it was dropping down the agenda for voters. Simon Hughes claimed that the Tory line on the referendum predicted their own defeat, Sir Roy Denman alleged that the Tory party was the “loony xenophobic right” and that Labour was being too slow to join the Euro, and John Leigh alleged that the Tories – because of their stance on Europe – were yesterday’s party.
¾ Frits Bolkestein’s soundbite was a direct rebuttal of Tory claims that there was a tax harmonisation agenda and John Stephens alleged that the Europhiles would come out fighting if the Tory emphasis on Europe continued.
There is no suggestion that the soundbites were constructed with an overall purpose in mind. Editing was more likely to have been on a day by day, item by item basis in reaction to unfolding events. But clearly in play was an underlying set of assumptions about what was important. These put to the top of the agenda the problems with the Tory party over the Europe policies. On the face of it, the Conservatives were given most exposure in this area, with their spokesmen featuring on double the number of occasions than Labour. They were heard putting forward a range of initiatives, which was important exposure and explanation of their stance. But examination of the overall content of the extracts shows that the biggest single category (11) was the Tories defending themselves against claims of being split, or their opponents alleging that they were split over Europe. The next largest category was six soundbites from the Conservatives outlining their policy initiatives and claims, followed by four from the prime minister outlining his,. There were three Conservative rebuttals of Labour policy, and two Labour rebuttals of that of the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats rebutted Conservative policy twice, and that of Labour (for being too slow on Europe) three times.
Thus, the biggest editorial focus in this important area of coverage – that of bringing to listeners’ attention a diversity of voices and opinions on European issues – was on presenting Conservative divisions over Europe. The proportion of Conservatives to those ranged against them was tipped only slightly against the Conservatives, but the impact of inclusion of items of this nature was again to draw disproportionate emphasis to the Tory problems. Within the content of these soundbites was the claim from Gordon Brown that up to 80 candidates did not adhere to the main party line on Europe. William Hague was included saying point blank that the party was not split, but nothing was included from him that went into the same sort of detail. Overall, the suggestion was of a party facing large dissent from within its own ranks, with Europhiles ready to break ranks.
By contrast, the soundbites about the Labour positioning on Europe were relatively straightforward – either Tony Blair outlining his vision of the development of Europe, or Gordon Brown neatly and firmly rebutting the Tory claims.
4. Correspondents: The reporting by correspondents of European issues, as elsewhere, put the spotlight firmly on the Tory campaign.
Early on, Chris Hogg (May 14) analysed the likely impact of the UKIP vote, and said that the party had people in that part of the world (Cornwall) firmly in its sights. He noted that the big question was whether UKIP would inherit the votes cast for the Referendum party in 1997. He then claimed that analysts had shown that “many” who had voted Referendum “had given up on the Tories”, before posing the question of what the Tories would have to do to win them back. The analysis clearly laid out that support for UKIP could be a balancing factor in deciding the outcome of the marginal constituency. He saw the main problem in this area as one for the Tories – for them to fight to win back the votes cast for the Referendum party at the last election, his reasoning being that “analysts” had suggested that “many” who voted for the party had given up on the Tories. This was the only direct analysis on PM of prospects for UKIP, apart from a feature incorporating a series of vox pops from
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 65 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Harwich illustrating that there were a range of opinions about Europe in a constituency which had been lost by the Tories. But it considered the withdrawal argument only though a very narrow perspective. UKIP claimed at the manifesto launch that it would draw support from across the political spectrum, particularly in areas (such as the South West) where support for the strongly Europhile Liberal Democrats was strongest. This was not reflected here.
Jonathan Beale (May 17) focused first on whether there was support for a harder line on Europe than the official “in Europe but not run by it” and ‘no’ to the pound only for the next parliament. The impression he gave was that there were lots of candidates who were not towing the party line, mostly because they were afraid of UKIP. He alleged that the party wanted to shut the debate down, and then, in dramatic terms, that the whole problem of Europe was a bigger problem for the Tories because of memories of the last election and because the party was Euro-sceptic. His approach seemed to define the editorial approach on PM (and other programmes analysed in this report) to the European issues at stake in the election. There was no corresponding acknowledgement t or exploration of Labour or Liberal democrat Euro-scepticism.
Sean Lay on May 23 acknowledged clearly that Mr Hague’s coalition of ‘nevers’ and ‘not for would hold, but suggested it was a messy compromise born out of the need for Mr Hague to show strong leadership, and said that the ambiguity “would have to be resolved”.
Norman Smith, in his quest for Europhiles on May 23, clearly acknowledged that half a dozen had failed to speak to him, and that Kenneth Clarke was adopting so low a profile that he had only appeared on local radio once, and then to talk about a tram scheme. His analysis went on to say that Edward Heath and Lord Britton “had nailed their colours to the mast” and that one shadow cabinet minister had said he was “furious about Lady Thatcher, adding that pro-Europeans (such as John Stevens, who had left the party) were also furious about the stance over the Euro and were warning that the battle began on June 8. The clear impact of the piece was to suggest that there were major tremors bubbling just beneath the surface; that the silence of the Europhiles was barely holding; and that major ructions would ensue on June 8. There were obviously problems within in the Conservative party but the issue here is of scale: Norman Smith made no real attempt to pin down the size of possible dissent, and left the clear implication that it was a big problem. A question is whether a similar report could have been filed about the Euro-sceptic Labour candidates. It perhaps could have been, but wasn’t.
Sean Lay (May 26)saw big problems for the Conservatives in the claim that the election was also a referendum on the Euro “as these were words that other parties will throw back at the Tories again and again” if the election was lost. Before spelling out the problems, he outlined fully what Mr Hague’s claims were, adding that Mr Portillo differed from Mr Hague in appearing to think that more people would vote ‘no’ in a referendum. There was no effort to introduce any balancing points about the reasons for the emphasis on the pound; the assumption was that it was the wrong topic being handled in a wrong way. rs .
Norman Smith, on the campaign trail on May 30, suggested that Mr Hague was brushing away “inevitable questions about doom and disaster” and “grumblings from Lord Brittan and others” with an intact sense of humour, then to add to Tory difficulties “a little known former Conservative minister called John Leigh was joining the Liberal Democrats”. After a soundbite that the Tories were “yesterday’s party”, Mr Smith said that Michael Portillo had performed some “deft wriggling” over Mr Hague’s claim that this was the last chance to save the pound. He concluded that Mr Hague “may not be downcast, but he does appear on the defensive”. The whole tenor of the piece suggested that the wriggling”, “on the defensive” and “yesterday’s party”. This may have been the case, but there was no attempt to put into context the grumblings; the simple impression was of a party in virtual meltdown, with the Europe policy as a central reason.
On May 31, Clare English questioned Andrew Marr on the assumption that the Tories had gone on Europe (and tax) and failed, by failing to shift the opinion polls. Andrew Marr responded that there were people inside the Conservative party, “people saying behind their hands” that the concentration on Europe was not working. He added that Mr Hague, despite this was “utterly unmoved and determined to carry on with” the focus on the Euro, and believed it was the issue that mattered most to him. As with other correspondent reports, there was no attempt to say how big a movement this group whispering behind their hands was.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 66 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
In the final correspondent piece of the campaign on June 5, Norman Smith, after reporting Lady Thatcher’s repeated ‘never’ to the pound, said there were those in the party who questioned the wisdom of allowing her more than a cameo, adding that she delighted the party faithful, but among voters and waverers “the fear is that she has the opposite effect”.
Thus overall, the correspondent commentary about European policies focused almost entirely on the Conservative campaign. There was little mention of Labour. The spotlight was thrown strongly on the Tory party’s difficulties. That was perhaps an inevitable response to the emphasis the Tories themselves put on Europe, and to the range of opinions on the campaign that were being expressed from within the party. The impact of the commentary was to suggest that the party was in deep trouble, an impression perhaps warranted to some extent. But the reporting was not entirely fair or balanced. The problem was that there was no effort to identify the real scale of the divisions – the listener was made strongly aware of Tory discord and disarray, but not of simple facts about the numbers of dissenters involved. Sean Lay, for example, said that Mr Hague’s coalition “should hold” – but there was no effort to say why, to explore the simple arithmetic involved.. Andrew Marr mentioned the whisperings behind hands, Norman Smith those in the party who were opposed to Lady Thatcher’s involvement and those who were joining Lord Britton’s grumblings. But how much support these figures commanded was never specified or even explored.
The absence of any analysis by correspondents of Labour policy on Europe was striking. Such reports were an important editorial device for examining the strength or otherwise of initiatives and policies. It seems, therefore to have been the judgement – whether consciously or not – that there were no areas of Labour policy worth exploring. Tony Blair’s speech, for example, was reported only through soundbite, and not subjected to any analysis. There was no effort to examine – as was raised by the Paul Sykes letter early in the campaign, or the UKIP manifesto launch – that there might be Euro- sceptic undercurrents in play with the Labour party, or of what impact this might have on voting intentions. . Equally, there was no attempt to look at the polarities within the party over the handling over the referendum. Other problems with Labour policy, outside the European arena, were examined, and in some respects, were highly critical. But this did not balance the lack of consideration of European issues – the impression given was that, for Labour, Europe did not present a problem, that it was fully united and uncontroversial on the main platform the Tories had chosen to fight on.
5. UKIP/withdrawal: There were no interviews on PM of anyone from UKIP, and only one soundbite from them, from Nigel Farage:
...Falmouth & Camborne, where you see the three parties all scoring roughly the same number of votes; Stafford where we have…
UKIP’s manifesto launch was reported not as event in its own right, but through an analysis by Christopher Hogg of the likely impact on the South West, where they had won strong support during the elections to the European Parliament. The vox pops gave some indication of the support that existed for the withdrawal case. This was seen by Mr Hogg as primarily, a threat to the Conservatives, the main question at stake being whether they could win back votes cast in 1997 for the Referendum Party.
The report on May 17 by Jonathan Beale which examined the different messages being put across by different parts of the Conservative party, mentioned UKIP and that Conservative candidates were supporting withdrawal:
…one, Anthony Steen has got in his literature, mention of having a referendum on membership of the European Union, possibly withdrawal.
Mr Beale’s conclusion was that:
So I think there are a large number of Tory candidates in the South West, where they feel UKIP - the United Kingdom Independence Party - breathing down their necks, and they’re worried about majorities and losing votes to UKIP, who are saying a harder line on Europe than their Party leadership would like.
Candidate Nick Serpell had said earlier in a soundbite that he supported a referendum on withdrawal, but there was not effort to put to him – and therefore for him to be able to answer – the allegation of
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 67 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______expediency. This was questionable reporting, because it clearly suggested that the only reason that Tories would support the withdrawal case was to win back UKIP support – in effect to save their skins, rather than through attachment to ideology.
On May 23, withdrawal was mentioned again. The sequence was that Gordon Brown claimed that the Conservatives were in the process of disintegrating, partly because 23 supported withdrawal.
We can confirm that by this afternoon, there are now 80 Conservative candidates who have broken from the official line. There are 23 who have already called for renegotiation or complete withdrawal from the European Union. The truth is, the Tories are becoming a party increasingly defined by their divisions over Europe. As a growing number become more explicit about their real agenda of renegotiation of the terms of membership of Europe and even withdrawal. (May 23)
Sean Lay said that there was some exaggeration in the figure, but not say how much. William Hague said the party was unified. John Redwood said that although there were differences of opinion, most supported the party line. Sean Lay concluded that Mr Hague was acting tough to avoid being cast in the same mould as John Major – and that the coalition should hold.
This was the only mention – by a correspondent or politician – during all of PM’s coverage of European issues of the likely size of the support for withdrawal from within the Conservative party. It was striking that it came from a Labour politician. Sean Lay put the claim into context to come extent, by saying that the information was based on previous comments, and not likely to be repeated in election addresses. The piece also contained a soundbite from William Hague claiming that his party was united and then analysis from Sean Lay in which he said that the Conservative coalition “should hold”. But as a piece of reporting about withdrawal it was one-dimensional and unsatisfactory. The supporters of withdrawal were considered only as a threat to Tory unity; claims about the level of support came only from Gordon Brown (and were only partly explained by Sean Lay); and the level of analysis was not sufficient to explain properly the issues involved. The conclusion that could be drawn was that withdrawal was being brushed under the carpet and was undermining Tory unity. It was not seen as an issue in its own right.
Overall, therefore, UKIP and withdrawal were considered only very briefly on PM. The treatment did not suggest that either was of importance outside the impact they would have on Conservative party unity and on intentions to vote Tory. No aspect of the UKIP case was considered, other than this brief statement from a supporter on May 14:
It’s the only way we’re ever going to go forward again. At the moment, we’re digressing; we’re actually going into a recession I think. It’s the taxes that are going from this country into the EEC that’s causing the crippling state of the tax situation that we have in the UK, simple as that.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 68 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Appendix: Soundbites on PM
1. (Conservative)FRANCIS MAUDE: Well we all run on a manifesto for the coming Parliament – we’re not writing a manifesto for the Parliament after this. And you know, like all our policies, our policy on keeping the pound is a policy for one parliament. (May 17)
2. (Conservative)May 23 WILL HAGUE: What it contains removes any remaining doubt that the EU plans to take away Britain’s powers to decide its own tax rates. The document spells out steps to be take to harmonise Income Tax and VAT across Europe, and of course, for Brussels, harmonious taxation is higher taxation. The document talks of the necessity of coordinating national Income Tax systems. It says that on indirect taxes like VAT, a high degree of harmonisation is necessary – that could mean extending VAT to items like food, books, children’s clothes, that are zero-rated in Britain, and it confirms that the EU intends to standardise tax on petrol and diesel, and again, you can be sure that petrol tax wouldn’t be coming down under those plans.
3. FRITS BOLKESTEIN: It strikes me that the discussion in Europe on the issue of tax harmonisation is often particularly misguided. There is no need for an across the board harmonisation of Member State’s tax systems. Major parts of the systems should be determined according to national preferences, national political choices. And as far as I’m concerned, it will remain like that for the foreseeable future.(May 23)
4. (Liberal Democrat) CHARLES KENNEDY: Why is it, that Mrs Thatcher can be quite clear cut in saying ‘never’, and yet he won’t say ‘never’? Where does that leave political principles? (May 23)
5. (Labour) GORDON BROWN:We can confirm that by this afternoon, there are now 80 Conservative candidates who have broken from the official line. There are 23 who have already called for renegotiation or complete withdrawal from the European Union. The truth is, the Tories are becoming a party increasingly defined by their divisions over Europe. As a growing number become more explicit about their real agenda of renegotiation of the terms of membership of Europe and even withdrawal.(May 23)
6. (Labour) STEPHEN BYERS: The first group is against joining a single currency for the lifetime of the next parliament, even if it were in Britain’s economic interests to do so. The second group led, we heard last night, by Margaret Thatcher, would rule out ever joining a single currency.(May 23)
7. (Conservative)WILLIAM HAGUE: I think we have no difficulty whatsoever in saying the Conservative Party is united. The choice at this election is between a Conservative Party which will keep the pound, and a Labour Party that will abolish the pound. As for comments about the Single Currency, I thought she was rather restrained compared to what she often says.(May 23)
8. (Conservative)TOM HARRIS: (Conservative candidate) Because we are all signed up to the Party’s policy, which is to keep the pound in the coming parliament – and my own guess would be that we’ll keep it for a lot longer than that. And I would wish to see that happen. And I would think that the vast majority of candidates would agree with that position. (May 23)
9. (Conservative)JOHN REDWOOD: Well, everybody knows my position on the Single Currency, I’ve made it crystal clear over the years, but for this election I’m fully behind William Hague, because I want to win this argument and I want a coalition of ‘never’ men and women and ‘not for the foreseeable future’ men and women – and we can think about the following parliament in good time (May 23)
10. JOHN STEVENS: When I was appointed, I was under the impression that we had an agreement that if William Hague came out and said ‘never’ to the Euro, the pro-Europeans would strike out immediately… we wouldn’t run, in return for – if the campaign went in such a way that people would be saying ‘never’ to the Euro – Ken Clarke and others would strike back.(May 24).
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 69 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
11. (Labour) Tony Blair (May 25): With all that history, I find strange and wrong that for large parts of today’s Conservative Party, Europe they say is the source of all our problems. For us, by contrast, Europe is a unique opportunity for influence and leadership in the world, giving that leadership on questions that are in fact vital to our own national interest. And that true patriotism is standing up for the British national interest first. And in the 21st Century, that patriotism demands that in a world moving ever-closer together we do not turn our back on Europe – the key strategic alliance, right on our doorstep, on which millions of British jobs depend, and 60% of our trade depends. Such isolationism is not standing up for Britain, it is relegating Britain to the sidelines of a Europe in which our jobs, our industry, and our influence are intimately engaged. We will recommend joining the Single Currency if it is in our national economic interest, and it is you, the British people, who will have the decision in your hands in a referendum.
12. (Labour) TONY BLAIR (May 25): In a second term, if elected, we will continue to take a leading role in setting the agenda in Europe. We’ll take forward the case for further structural reform, to make European economies more flexible, more dynamic; we will take a leading role in enlarging Europe, and in getting the first wave of applicants in by the 2004 European Parliamentary Elections; and we will work with Germany and our other partners, to get radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is a fact that we face common challenges across Europe. Take an issue like the abuse of our asylum system – and again, this is an area where to tackle it requires a mixture of our own measures in our country, and European action.
13. (Conservative)MICHAEL PORTILLO (May 25): First of all, the Prime Minister has never given us any reasons why we should enter the Euro, it simply isn’t good enough to tell people either that it’s inevitable, or that it’s frightening to be left out. The Prime Minister must give reasons, and we shall be giving reasons against. Secondly, I think the Prime Minister has an over- inflated idea of his power with the people, I think the day has long since passed when Tony Blair could click his fingers and expect the British people to fall into line. It’s quite clear that the moderate majority of British people do not want to give up their currency, don’t want to give up the pound, and have not been persuaded that they should go into the Euro. And the Prime Minister has to address this very important political question: how you have democratic accountability for the decisions that are taken that affect people’s lives very vitally.
14. (Liberal Democrat) CHARLES KENNEDY(May 25): Only 48 hours ago, Gordon Brown gave that detailed critique of a speech to the CBI dinner, which doesn’t sit entirely easily alongside the mood music that’s now emanating from the Prime Minister. And this game of ‘hard cop, soft cop’ has been going on with this issue for the last four years, and this could just be yet another example of that. I hope it’s more than that, but it could just be another example of that. And I think that that’s what’s bedevilling the issue. Smoke and mirrors all the time, conflicting, confusing signals, depending on which audience you happen to be addressing at any given moment.
15. (Labour) TONY BLAIR (May 25): On trade, we are listened to, in the WTO, because we act as part of Europe, and because we’re seen as a key influence for more open trade in Europe. In the Middle East, for example, we’ve influence because we act together with our partners. And that’s what I mean by Europe becoming a Superpower, but not a Superstate. We remain nation states, but by working together, we increase our leverage on the global problems that face us. Another point I want to make very strongly to you is that the choice that is sometimes posited by the Conservatives, that we have to choose between the US and Europe, is again, I believe, a fundamentally false one. We are stronger in Washington if we are seen to be leading in Europe; and we have more influence in Europe, if we are seen to be listened to in Washington.
16. (Conservative)MICHAEL PORTILLO (May 25): The Prime Minister has always failed to make the arguments for joining. He thinks it’s sufficient to scare the British people, by leading them to believe that it’s somehow frightening to be left out, or that it’s somehow inevitable. It is not inevitable. It is a decision for the British people to make. And this afternoon, the Prime Minister has been out there, saying that it is patriotic to move towards a European Superstate. Well I think the vast, moderate majority of people will not think that it is patriotic.
17. (Liberal Democrat) ALAN BEITH (May 25): It was a thoughtful and sensible speech, but the underlying message is still that it’s down to Gordon Brown to decide whether we’re allowed a referendum, and he still doesn’t seem to have a strategy for getting Britain to the point where we
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 70 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
could seriously join the Euro, which we thing would be good for Britain. What the speech underlines is what we know Tony Blair believes, but it’s not the message we always get from the Government, which hasn’t really taken the steps necessary, either to explain things to the British people, or to get us to the point where we can make a real success of joining the Euro, as we ought to do.
18. (Conservative)WILLIAM HAGUE (May 26): They’d fix the rules so that their side could spend twice as much on a referendum campaign as our side would be allowed to. They’d choose the question, they’d choose the timing, so I think they’d have a very good chance of winning it. And that is why the key decision about the pound is made at this election on June 7th.
19. (Liberal Democrat) SIMON HUGHES (May 26): William Hague appears to be predicting defeat for his view on Europe, just as the rest of the country appear to be predicting defeat for his position in this election. This doesn’t appear to be a campaign that’s positively sending messages that they’re likely to win either on Europe or on public services – either now or in the future.
20. (Conservative)MICHAEL PORTILLO (May 26): When people despair of democratic change, then people become desperate, then people become frustrated, then people get ugly. We have at all costs to avoid all of that. The British people are not there to be blagged, bamboozled or hoodwinked, the British people will not give up the pound.
21. (Conservative)MICHAEL PORTILLO (May 28): Imagine that for every month in 2002 it would be like wasting money in each month, on another Dome. Then in every month in 2003, we would waste the money again, in each month on another Dome. And then every month in 2004, we would again waste the money on another Dome. 36 Domes, 36 times £1 billion wasted every month for a three year period in order to convert Britain away from the currency that it wants, the pound, to the currency it doesn’t want, the Euro.
22. (Labour) GORDON BROWN (May 28): The authors of that report being quoted by the Conservatives say there is a great deal of data, but it is not consistent or comprehensive. Data relating to this subject is subject to a great deal of guesswork and estimation, so this report that the Conservatives are quoting is not worth the paper it’s printed on, it is not accurate.
23. (Conservative)FRANCIS MAUDE (May 28): For the question to be fair, it has got to talk about the choice. The choice is between having the pound as our national currency and having the Euro as our national currency. Anything without that choice being starkly spelt out in that way would be loaded.
24. (Labour) GORDON BROWN (May 28): We’re not going to get into the business of writing questions that would be speculation; I know a lot of people have given speculation about it, but really it’s up to parliament, and only after there’s been an assessment, the five tests have been evaluated, and then a report is made to Cabinet, even before that discussion begins. And Mr Maude is trying to shift attention from the Conservative’s failure to address the question of a £20 billion cuts programme that they would implement if they came into Government.
25. (Liberal Democrat) CHARLES KENNEDY(May 28): I think that you will have a completely neutral question, along the lines of ‘Do you wish to see the pound sterling enter an operating European Single Currency’ – to which the answer will be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. And I think the Conservatives are beginning to realise now the Euro is dropping in their own minds, that most people when they see the balance of the argument set out, in several years to come I suspect, that they’ll decide in favour.
26. (Conservative)WILLIAM HAGUE (May 28): The French Prime Minister has let the cat out of the bag in a speech today, which Tony Blair tried to dissuade him from making. But he made it anyway, and said how much the countries of Continental Europe want to pursue a process of closer and closer political integration. And Tony Blair and Gordon Brown always go along with that agenda, with more decisions about our taxes being made in the European Union rather than at Westminster, with more and more of our rights and powers being signed away.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 71 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
27. (Labour) TONY BLAIR (May 28): We don’t agree with harmonising taxes across Europe; unfair tax competition though is another matter, because that prevents the Single Market from working properly. But this is an argument you know, that’s gone on, but we’ve won this argument every time it’s been raised in Europe. The most important thing, however, is for Britain not to end up separating ourselves out from Europe, or losing influence in Europe in circumstances where 60% of our trade is with Europe, and millions of British jobs depend on it.
28. (Liberal Democrat) SIR ROY DENMAN (May 28): I don’t think what the Conservative Party’s line is will matter a great deal, they’ve been taken over by the loony xenophobic right, in the same way the Labour Party was taken over by the loony xenophobic left in 1983 – and will go down to the same landslide defeat, so I don’t think it greatly matters what they’re saying at the moment…. Well the debate matters if Mr Blair will have a referendum and that seems to be highly unlikely… We have them for these reasons, I think before Mr Blair, when he wins, has a referendum, there have to be too conditions fulfilled. The first is that Mr Gordon Brown will be agreeable to certifying that the economic conditions have been met, in other words he will be agreeable to going into Europe, if the referendum works. And in second place, Mr Blair will have to have his pollsters and his focus groups telling him that he will win and will win big. And I think the likelihood of having those two things fulfilled is about the same as having the Loch Ness Monster found and put on exhibition at the London Zoo. 29. (Conservative)LEON BRITTAN (May 30): I think that it is not realistic, nor in our interest to try to renegotiate the Treaty of Nice, we stood up for and successfully defended the British veto on tax harmonisation and on many other things. To say this election is the last chance to stop the Euro implies that the British people are not going to be able to recognise any skulduggery if there is any.
30. WILLIAM HAGUE (May 30): No, certainly not. We don’t take any notice of opinion polls, and in fact already this morning in Scotland, the candidates have been telling me what a good reception they’re having, how well the campaign is going.
31. JOHN LEIGH (Tory defector May 30): Well, I think it is very much yesterday’s party. I think if you look at the Conservative supporters in the country and the activists, they are in the nicest way older members of the community. It’s not a party that’s appealing to the young people.
32. (Conservative)MICHAEL PORTILLO (May 30): We’ve talked about it as a referendum on the Euro, because we want to make clear to people that this may be the last fair vote that they get on the subject.
33. (Conservative)WILLIAM HAGUE (June 6): Because of Mr Blair’s plan to scrap the pound and surrender to Brussels, this could be the last General Election in Britain where we can still run our own affairs in this country.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 72 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Coverage of withdrawal and the UK Independence Party
Background
The General Election saw the crystallisation of a distinct shift in the British political landscape; a realignment of the three major parties which had been occurring gradually, now seemed to be fully in place. New Labour had evolved, shifting their policies to commandeer the centre ground, with commentators mooting Tony Blair as the ‘true heir to Thatcherism’. This fundamental adjustment left the Liberal Democrats as the ‘most left wing party in Britain’, while the Conservatives tried to focus attention on traditional right-wing concerns in an attempt to offer a viable alternative to the incumbent Government.
In terms of the European Union and the Single Currency, this shift was vitally important. It served to reinforce entrenched ideas, and to further polarise European issues in terms of left and right. Of course there were dissenting voices on both sides, but generally speaking the issue of Europe, in mainstream politics at least, became divided along stark political lines. The Liberal Democrats, now furthest left were also the most Euro-enthusiastic. Labour, now a party of the centre, demonstrated a slightly more cautious approach built upon their five economic tests and the promise of a referendum. In the course of the election, it sought to re-define patriotism itself in line with his vision of Europe. The Conservative Party, pursuing what was perceived as a broadly right-wing agenda, took a Euro-sceptic stance, reiterating the policy of ‘in Europe not run by Europe’ and ruling out entry into the Euro for
The UK Independence Party
Within this framework, the UK Independence Party, with its policy of ‘never’ to the Single Currency, and its advocacy of a complete withdrawal from Europe, seemed to offer a natural progression along this linear path, a party to the right of the Conservatives offering a more ‘hard-line’ approach to Europe than the mainstream right could dare to contemplate. From the outset, UKIP were painted as a party standing alone in both their rejection of the European Union and their outright rejection of the Single Currency. In an item on UKIP’s manifesto launch for the BBC Ten O’Clock News, on 14th May, correspondent Carole Walker commented:
The only party opposing membership of the European Union chose a pub opposite the London office of the European Commission to launch its manifesto.
This was, of course, a glaring factual inaccuracy demonstrating a poor understanding of the views of other minor parties. For example, the election manifesto of Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party is explicit in its attitude towards the European Union.
The Socialist Labour Party is totally committed to complete withdrawal from the European Union, or Common Market as it was originally called. That is the only way Britain can begin to regain control of its economy, sovereignty and its political powers.
Similarly, the views on Europe of the other minor left-wing parties who were contesting this election were given only cursory acknowledgement, or were ignored completely. With regards specifically to the issue of the Single Currency, only one report on the Green Party mentioned their opposition to the Euro, and this raft of their policy was never fully discussed or explained. As for other left-wing groups, their various stances on Europe were never even mentioned. The Single Currency became key election issue – primarily due to the Conservatives’ ‘save the pound’ campaign. It therefore seems extraordinary these other shades of opinion were omitted completely. Anti-European Union sentiment and opposition to the Single Currency, by default, became solely an issue of the political right, and UKIP were portrayed as a single-issue party on the political fringes.
In an exercise such as this, it is impossible to accurately quantify how far viewers and listeners absorbed the viewpoints on UKIP being delivered by BBC News. Much of course depends on an audience’s prior political knowledge, and to ascertain the impact of these reports would require a
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 73 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______different form of research altogether. But certainly, over the course of the campaign, the notion that opposition to the Euro was an issue solely of the right became firmly embedded, and in the few examples available - most notably in the ‘Listeners’ Letters sections of PM and Today - this concept appeared to have lodged in the minds of the audience. A letter from Peter Lewis of East Sussex, broadcast on the 2nd June read as follows:
On the grassy verge, not far from our house, there’s a big poster that has one simple message at its centre. It says One Agenda – Yours. How can this be? If the car ahead has a Socialist Alliance supporter driving, and the one behind a UK Independence Party supporter, these are too vastly different agendas. Surely the only honest solution to this problem is that the candidate, if elected, will only vote on those matters that can be agreed on by every single constituent.
This letter was primarily a wry look at the concept of election advertising, but the subtext here is clear. To illustrate his point, the listener chose two parties that he perceived to represent the opposite extremes of the political spectrum, the hard left and hard right. Of course, the two parties do not have ‘vastly different agendas’ – at least in terms attitudes to the Euro. The Socialist Alliance are also anti- Single Currency, but recently amended their policy to ‘No to the Euro, No to the Pound’ in an attempt to distance themselves from perceived nationalist sentiment. But this example clearly demonstrates how public perceptions may have been shaped by the BBC’s election coverage: the Socialist Alliance on one extreme and UKIP on the other, and by choosing his letter for broadcast, the BBC served to strengthen this perception.
When UKIP were given the right to reply, its leaders were keen to stress their party’s non-sectarian opposition to the European political project. Nigel Farage explained on the 10 O’Clock News:
You know, this is not a left wing or a right wing question; there are people from all political parties that agree with this particular policy.
However, as shall be explored subsequently, because UKIP were consistently presented as a threat to the Conservative vote in marginal seats, the protestations of their candidates could do little to allay the fear that the party only had appeal to those with views to the right of the Tories.
In many reports featuring UKIP, the emphasis was on marginal seats, and the anomalous nature of the British electoral system, which meant a vote for UKIP could actually result in a Europhile minister being elected to parliament in the place of a Conservative Euro-sceptic. This appeared to take precedence over issues of policy in many reports. Interview time for UKIP was brief, but the same question re-emerged throughout the campaign.
The agenda became clear from the outset. In an interview with Nigel Farage on 14th May, Sue Macgregor asked:
You see, David Heathcoat-Amory, the Industry spokesman for the Tories, says it makes no sense at all for your party to stand for Euro-sceptic Tory seats, it’s insane. In other words, people like him, who have a small majority will point to people like you and say you’re simply splitting the Tory vote . . .
On this occasion, Mr Farage was able to answer the charge directly, describing UKIP as is “a mish- mash of people” who previously have been Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, or Labour supporters. The following day, in a report from the marginal constituency Harrogate, Sarah Nelson commented:
What could tip the balance is the decision of the UK Independence Party to field one Ben Brown. He’s relaxed about taking votes from the Conservatives, even although that could help the election of a more Euro-friendly Lib Dem.
The soundbite from Ben Brown which followed supported Ms Nelson’s assertion in part, he remarked “I’m here to fight my corner, let the others fight their corner”. But the central assertion – that UKIP would take votes from Conservatives rather than the Liberal Democrats or Labour Party supporters – passed unchallenged
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 74 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
This assumption was to become a leitmotif, reverberating throughout the election coverage. A Today Programme report on the 25th May from the marginal seat of Teignbridge in Devon also appeared to make the same presumption: that UKIP would collect votes only from disenfranchised Conservatives, rather than those uncomfortable with the Liberal Democrats’ Euro-enthusiasm, or perhaps the 30.7% of voters who, ultimately, decided not to turn out in Teignbridge at all. A day earlier, Jeffrey Titford had been asked about votes for UKIP splitting the Conservative vote, being asked by Edward Stourton, “why on earth should UKIP be challenging people who begin from a similar starting point on European
Similarly, when Jeremy Paxman interviewed Nigel Farage on Newsnight, May 29th, the first question was designed to make Nigel Farage admit that UKIP would not be taking office on the morning after the election – the inference here being that a vote for UKIP was a waste – while the rest of the brief interview pursued a similar tack to what had gone before, with Paxman asking incredulously, “given that [The Conservatives] are the only party that is committed to saving the pound, how on earth are you advancing the cause of Sterling?”
The problem here is twofold. First – as has been discussed previously – the constant linking of UKIP with the Conservative Party may have dissuaded some Liberal Democrat and Labour voters from shifting their vote to UKIP. For disillusioned Conservative voters and those with an anti-Euro viewpoint, particularly in the more marginal seats, the BBC’s constant focus on the UKIP ‘threat’ may have forced them to vote tactically in an attempt to elect a party committed to keep the pound, at least for the lifetime of the next parliament. Despite attempts by UKIP candidates to challenge these assumptions, the same sort of question was reiterated so often and the same style of report delivered so frequently, it would have been difficult for voters to attend the polling booth without this doubt in their mind.
Internal Conservative Splits
With the majority of pro-European Conservatives avoiding media attention for the duration of the election campaign, the UKIP ‘threat’ in marginal seats also served as a device with which to attack the Conservative Party itself. UKIP were used on a number of occasions to highlight Conservative Party disunity over Europe. In an item for PM on the 17th May, Jonathan Beale reported from the three-way marginal constituency of Falmouth & Camborne in Cornwall:
I think there are a large number of Tory candidates in the South West, where they feel the United Kingdom Independence Party breathing down their necks, and they’re worried about majorities and losing votes to UKIP, who are taking a harder line on Europe than their Party leadership would like.
The implication here is clear: this ‘large number’ of Conservative candidates were too cowardly to fight their seats on the European policy being proposed by William Hague, and that they were adopting this stance in an attempt to save their careers rather than any deeply held ideological belief. Later that day, Mr Beale delivered a report from the same constituency for the evening news, where “some Conservative candidates are breaking rank with William Hague’s policy on Europe”. The main part of the report concentrated on Francis Maude and Nick Serpell, both campaigning on the streets, and “each with a very different message on Europe.” This was placed against a familiar background:
The South West is fertile Euro-sceptic territory. Fishing and farming communities blame Europe for the collapse of their livelihoods. The United Kingdom Independence Party has already taken votes from the Tories by offering people a chance to get out. One Tory candidate is responding with a commitment in his literature that’s likely to offend the Party’s pro-Europeans.
Again, UKIP were taking votes ‘only from the Tories’, while Nick Serpell’s stance on Europe was depicted as primarily as a response to UKIP’s presence. In effect, the ‘threat’ did not materialise, and Mr Serpell lost his seat to a Labour majority four times greater than the actual UKIP vote.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 75 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Norman Tebbit’s claim that UKIP had been infiltrated by MI6 agents was investigated by a number of BBC news programmes. Lord Tebbit had made the accusation in a Spectator article, and seemed to emanate from the familiar concern that UKIP candidates might split the Conservative votes in marginal seats where ‘arch-sceptics’ were standing. Lord Tebbit believed this to be a Government plot, deriving Blair’s fanatical obsession not just to beat but to destroy the Conservative (The Spectator, 23rd May 2001). Certainly the claim appeared to wrong-foot UKIP slightly: Nigel Farage on the Ten O’Clock News 23rd May, spoke of unusual things that had happened within UKIP a year previously, including the leaking of confidential letters and private conversations. By the next morning, Jeffrey Titford was pronouncing Lord Tebbit’s allegations “a smear story to try to discredit the UK Independence Party.” But underlying this claim – and something which was never properly addressed – is the sense that the security services tend to only infiltrate extremist or anti-democratic groups, political parties which are seen as a threat to society, which are generally of the hard left or hard right. In a report on the 10 O’Clock News (15th May) which looked at Paul Sykes’s call for a referendum on withdrawal from the European Union, Andrew Marr commented:
Now the danger, of course, for all the main parties, is once they start opening the gates to this, is more and more people may come over to the idea, and they may find themselves drawn towards a referendum that the political establishment in this country very much doesn’t want.
The concept of this ‘political establishment’ was not fully explained, but the inference here was that those with a withdrawal policy were somehow challenging the status quo and this was a ‘danger’ for the main parties. Throughout the campaign coverage, the withdrawal viewpoint – and on occasion, UKIP itself – was consistently portrayed as being a threat.
This morning we heard you on the Today Programme, where you couldn’t bring yourself to say you’d rule out membership of the Euro forever. You said you found it very hard to envisage, but you didn’t say ‘never’ – are you worried that the ‘never’ stance on the Euro makes the Tories look extreme?
This question, put by Clare English to Francis Maude on PM 23rd May did not mention UKIP overtly, but it certainly had serious implications for the party. The insinuation here was that the very act of saying ‘never’ to the Euro was somehow ‘extreme’. With discussion of Green Party, Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist and the Socialist Labour Party’s opposition of the Single Currency being omitted completely from the campaign coverage, this charge was laid directly at UKIP’s door.
This notion of ‘extremism’ appeared recurrently. Sir Peter Tapsell was called to account by the Today Programme on two separate occasions, for “invoking Germany’s Nazi past” during a speech he delivered in opposition to the Euro. On the 23rd May, John Humphrys began with a strong assertion: “The trouble with this sort of language is it sounds desperately extreme, doesn’t it?” While in the earlier interview on 14th May, Sue MacGregor suggested that Tapsell’s remarks were “to many is offensive, and to some is a bit of a cheap shot” and when he agreed he would like to rule out entry of the Euro for good, Ms MacGregor advised, “Well, perhaps it would be more sensible for you to support another party”. The intimation here, of course, is that Sir Peter Tapsell, with his ‘offensive’ views would find a more comfortable home within UKIP.
Reports such as these demonstrate how the assumption has developed over time that opposition to the Euro necessarily stems from distrust of other nations. A letter from Colin McKillip to PM, broadcast on the first of June illustrates this clearly:
Am I apathetic because I can’t find a party worth my support? I can select the British Xenophobic Save the Shilling Party, the Scottish Xenophobic Party who want to create the centralised economy that failed Russia so well, the left-wing radicals who at least admit I’ll pay more, or the pay-more and do nothing incumbents. Oh for a system where the candidates had their own minds
Mr McKillip appears here to be referring to the Conservative Party’s ‘fight to save the pound’, but implication here is obvious – that the Euro-sceptic or anti-Euro standpoint is one based on racism.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 76 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Obviously, this one person’s opinion, rather than the ‘voice of the BBC’ – but ultimately the producers of PM must take responsibility for choosing such letters above others.
In the report from Falmouth & Camborne mentioned previously, Conservative candidate Nick Serpell insisted that he would never vote to enter the Euro and would “not be unhappy” if the proposed referendum on Britain joining the Euro became a referendum on British membership of the EU. Jonathan Beale commented on this, remarking that:
The [Conservative] leadership is doing its best to ignore such appeals to nationalist sentiment – refusing to discipline candidates who are going well beyond the current policy.
Of course, the phrase British or English ‘nationalist sentiment’ has very different connotations to the Scottish or Welsh variety. Again anti-Europeanism was being implicitly linked to racial intolerance and xenophobia. A more overt example appeared on a Today Programme discussion on Europe and patriotism on the 26th May. The two speakers were introduced by James Naughtie thus:
We’re joined by Lord Parekh, who’s a Labour Peer, Professor of Politics at Hull University, and also by Laurence Robertson, a Conservative candidate in this election, he was embroiled briefly in the John Townend racism row a little earlier on.
While indeed Laurence Robertson was involved in the John Townend affair, introducing him in this way, suggested to listeners that his viewpoint on Europe was somehow emanating from a racist perspective. The discussion was focused solely on issues of patriotism and Europe, and neither speaker brought issues of race into play; yet the introduction shows how the line between Europe and race can easily become blurred.
The problem intensified as the broadcasters shifted their focus away from European matters for the latter part of the campaign. While UKIP are keen to stress their non-racist credentials, the term ‘Europe’ and the phrase ‘save the pound’ became bundled together with a raft of other issues, particularly those seen as the Conservative Party’s ‘strong issues’. Gito Hari in a report for PM on the final day of campaigning, 6th June, gave an overview of William Hague’s leadership.
And put crudely, in almost sort of London cabby’s kind of language, he wants to save the pound, cut taxes, kick out asylum seekers and bang up criminals.
This was policy put in its starkest terms. The conceit he used, putting his comments in ‘London cabby’s language’ served only to paint a superficial and extreme picture - Hague’s strategy. of Euro-scepticism here described in unsophisticated, uneducated terminology - the phrases ‘kick out’ and ‘bang up’ carrying an implicit sense of violence. Passages such as these ultimately presented anti-Europeanism and opposition to the Single Currency as something to be feared.
UKIP received similar treatment in a BBC News report of 31st May. Correspondent Ben Brown reported from the marginal seat of Wells in Somerset where he noted, the several thousand votes UKIP were hoping to achieve “could be enough to prise this beautiful constituency from a hard-line Euro- sceptic Conservative.” In an election dominated by images of well-orchestrated press conferences, rallies and photo opportunities, there appeared little room for any visual bias on the part of the broadcasters. In this case, however, the opening clip of Steve Reed, wielding a mallet and hammering at a UKIP campaign board with repetitive thuds, observed well-established Hitchcockian techniques. Reed was grim-faced, shot from a low-angle, positioned diagonal to the frame, the sky acting as a backlight, throwing his face into shadow
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 77 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
The sinister visual imagery was augmented by a commentary which bordered on the histrionic:.
“Steve Reed wants to smash the European Union into pieces. He’s running here for the UK Independence Party. He claims that the Conservative fight to save the pound is not enough. Britain, he says, has to pull out of Europe altogether.”
The notion of ‘smashing the European Union into pieces” has unambiguous overtones of violence and menace. Again UKIP were positioned as being more ‘extreme’ in their views than the Conservative Party, whose fight to save the pound was ‘not enough’.
The soundbite from Steve Reed which followed, although critical towards both the European Union all of the mainstream parties said no such thing, and this commentary appeared to give a clear misrepresentation of UKIP policy. As the party’s website explains: “We are not opposed to the EU as such - simply to Britain being part of it.”. - Clearly smashing something into pieces is quite different to wishing not to be part of it.
This whole opening sequence seemed designed to portray UKIP as a menace, while the rest of the report trod the well-worn path: that voting UKIP could mean the Liberal Democrat candidate could gain an historic victory, sweeping the Conservatives out of the county. This did not come to pass, with David Heathcoat-Amory increasing his majority over the Liberal Democrat candidate, but the question remains as to whether voters who initially intended voting UKIP may have switched their allegiances, in the wake of this and other similar reports.
Conclusion
Coverage of UKIP was, for the most part, one-dimensional. The same style of report was delivered repeatedly across the various BBC news platforms being monitored during the election period. The focus was primarily on marginal constituencies and UKIP were portrayed as a threat to the Conservative Party. Within these reports assumptions were repeatedly made that UKIP would be taking votes at the Conservative Party’s expense, rather than garnering support from Labour or Liberal Democrat voters. By concentrating so heavily on the peculiarities of the British electoral system, the coverage failed to explore any of the other policies being put forward by UKIP, or offer any alternative perspective on the party’s core support. It is, of course, impossible to tell whether the BBC’s coverage affected UKIP’s eventual showing in the election. However, it would seem reasonable to conclude that in an age where voters are increasingly conversant with the practice of tactical voting, sections of the electorate may have been swayed by these reports and voted for one of the main three parties, rather than UKIP.
By neglecting to highlight the various European policies of the minor parties on the political left, the BBC strengthened the already entrenched notion that opposition to the Euro is strictly a right wing issue. This has important implications for those voters who perceive themselves to be liberal, left wing or centrist in their political outlook. Opinion polls have consistently shown widespread public opposition to the Single Currency and that around a third (33%) of the population are in favour of a complete British withdrawal from the European Union. This is problematic: if the only avenue shown to be available is on the political right, some voters may decide instead to remain with their old allegiances rather than shift their whole political perspective. Perhaps more crucially, the BBC’s omission of other anti-Euro perspectives painted UKIP as an isolated party on the very margins of the political spectrum.
If an issue is being discussed fairly and properly, then both sides of the argument must be addressed in a reasonable and equal manner. At its most basic level, the debates on the European Union and the Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 78 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Single Currency can be reduced to a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question: either the British people wish to be part of these institutions, or they do not. There are many shades of opinion in between, each emanating from a different ideological perspective; but crucially, if the broadcast media portray the definite ‘no’ position as ‘extreme’ – as they did in their coverage of UKIP – the ‘yes’ position becomes the only logical alternative.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 79 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Missing MPs: whose agenda?
From the outset, commentators were quick to observe the ‘carefully choreographed’ style of the election campaign. Public appearances by politicians and party leaders were ‘stage managed’ and strategies had been mapped out meticulously, well in advance. The Communications Research Centre at Loughborough University, in their monitoring project for The Guardian noted ‘an unusually high degree of agreement across all media sectors’ with regard to what the main issues were and when these issues occurred within the campaign. For some, even the final result itself appeared to be a foregone conclusion: a Labour victory predicted by the opinion polls and bolstered by the bookmakers’ odds.
This framework was restrictive, and therefore somewhat problematic for the BBC. Contemporary television and radio news has a dual role: in addition to keeping audiences informed, it must also keep them engaged and entertained. Within the election coverage a struggle ensued. The spin-doctors and strategists were desperate to keep the campaign ‘on message’, while the media were continually looking for elements to disrupt this pre-determined agenda, to lift their coverage from the realms of the mundane and deliver an interesting or exciting story.
On some occasions this was to occur naturally, through unexpected or unplanned events. Such episodes were to provide some of the campaign’s most enduring images: Tony Blair’s obvious discomfort at being berated over the Government’s running of the NHS by an angry Sharon Storer; the streaker leaping on stage beside Charles Kennedy during a Liberal Democrat rally; Conservative Party aides hastily peeling a ‘vote Labour’ sticker from the back of William Hague’s jacket; John Prescott punching an egg-throwing protester. At these junctures, the smooth progress of the campaign was impeded by the actions of the electorate themselves.
Yet, instances such as these were infrequent and often fleeting. As a consequence, broadcasters adopted their own strategies for maintaining audience interest in the three-week run up to polling day.
Foremost, journalists and editors seemed keen to deconstruct the campaign process itself, to reach for a fundamental and intrinsic ‘truth’ behind the carefully orchestrated set pieces. No sooner had the parties honed their media manipulation techniques, it seemed, than the goalposts had been shifted and a new set of rules and paradigms established. Montage sequences were used to illustrate the gruelling schedule of life on the campaign trail and the drudgery of delivering identical speeches in town squares and church halls the length and breadth of the country. A sequence on Newsnight, for example, showed Ffion Hague laughing politely at her husband’s humorous asides in three different locations. A PM report, meanwhile, reported on Charles Kennedy’s three-and-a-half hour trip from London to Devon to secure an appearance on regional television news: a visit which lasted just eight minutes.
Photo opportunities were deconstructed in a similar manner: on the evening before polling day, Newsnight broadcast a clip of William Hague visiting a school, listening to two children playing a keyboard. Mr Hague was encouraging, exclaiming ‘Great!’, but the voiceover was swift to deflate his enthusiasm: “It can’t have been that great though, because he hasn’t been to any others. He’s made one visit to a doctor’s surgery too” The sarcastic aside gave the sequence a new slant – subverting the original premise of the visit and the message Mr Hague was hoping to convey. These examples are akin to a ‘knowing wink’ between broadcaster and audience, a suggestion that the public ought not to take these carefully planned appearances by politicians at face value.
The difficulty here is that when irony or cynicism is used, the actual messages and debates become diluted. A sequence in the same Newsnight report presented a montage of William Hague delivering a message from various locations:
There are now only twelve days to save the pound . . . This election is the last chance to save the pound . . . the pound is at stake in this election, this is what is at stake . . . we have eight days left to save the pound
Through repetition, the message itself becomes clouded, and new meanings emerge: in this instance, perhaps, that ‘William Hague is monotonously pushing the same issue’.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 80 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
The constant search for the ‘reality’ behind the party spin was perhaps best typified an expedition undertaken by Jeremy Vine, between John O’Groats and Land’s End. He made the journey in a decrepit VW campervan, somewhat ironically dubbed the ‘Newsnight Battlebus’, calling in at political hotspots across the country. The symbolism here was clear: Jeremy Vine’s chosen mode of transport was a sharp contrast to the efficient, modern and well-equipped party ‘battlebuses’ and private jets. As such, it seemed to be intended to represent a gritty authenticity, a beacon of integrity and truth. The artifice of traditional news delivery – where journalists seem to appear instantaneously, as if by magic, at the required location – was dissolved, and the journey itself, with its attendant traffic jams, mechanical failures and minor accidents became as important as the people who were interviewed along the way.
The politicians encountered during this campaign travelogue were given a similarly offhand treatment. Perhaps the most memorable, a report from Hartlepool was where Peter Mandelson objected to Mr Vine’s line of questioning, then terminated the interview and climbed out of the campervan. Rather than ending up on the cutting room floor - as Mr Mandelson might possibly have envisaged - the sequence and the subsequent shot of the sheepish candidate climbing back into the van to resume the interview remained in the final edit. Indeed, it became the hook for the whole report, used as a trailer shown earlier in the programme.
The difficulty here is that the news itself is as much an artificial construct as the spin and ‘stage- management’ that the broadcasters were attempting to demystify – and ultimately there may be no definitive, inherent ‘truth’ for them to present. Although entertaining, this journalistic strategy gave a sense of negativity to the election coverage - so much so that Andrew Marr’s final piece to camera on the night before polling day appeared incongruous in its sincerity. He spoke of ‘a kind of alchemy, a sort of magic going on in the democratic process’, and stated that ‘for as long as the ballot boxes are open tomorrow, power lies where it’s always supposed to, in the hands of the people’. The optimism of his words was startling, as if from another, more innocent, age of broadcasting, and they sat uncomfortably with the pervasive feeling cynicism and doubt created during the previous three weeks.
The Missing MPs
Another strategy employed by BBC News, presumably to enliven coverage, and bring discord to the ‘careful orchestration’ was the frequent focus on candidates who might cause embarrassment to their party leadership or highlight disagreement over party policy. Of course, this is approach is not unique to the election coverage; conflict is central to politics and an essential ingredient of broadcast news, both in terms of differences of opinion between parties, and internal dissent within the parties themselves.
Yet, a series of reports on ‘Missing MPs’, replicated across the raft of BBC news output, became something altogether different. The first search was to locate Shadow Treasury spokesman, Oliver Letwin, embroiled in a row over planned Conservative tax-cuts, and subsequently “more elusive than th May. The way of dealing with this editorially was to become familiar – a reporter travelling around a constituency, speaking to party agents and local people, ringing doorbells and knocking on doors, in an attempt to locate the Minister in question. Indeed, a virtually identical feature appeared on the Today programme the following morning, with another correspondent attempting to locate Mr Letwin. This was juxtaposed with two similar searches, this time for Labour’s Keith Vaz and Geoffrey Robinson, both embroiled in allegations of sleaze. Each time, the search ended fruitlessly – although Keith Vaz was located, he refused to answer questions.
While these searches appeared to be in the vein of traditional, hard-nosed investigative journalism, they were often self-reflexive – a journey for journey’s sake. The vox pops with local voters appeared to support the notion that the Ministers in question were ‘keeping a low profile’, but scrutinised more closely, this was astute sleight of hand – the vast majority of those questioned seemed unsure of who their MP actually was – and would therefore have been unlikely to encounter them whether they were
As the campaign progressed, journalists continued to track ‘missing’ candidates. Former Conservative Shaun Woodward, now standing amid much controversy for the safe Labour seat of St Helens South,
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 81 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______provided another game of cat-and-mouse on Newsnight. And perhaps the most stage-managed item of the entire election was also on Newsnight - the eventual “snaring” of Oliver Letwin at a Roman- themed garden party by the pop singer-turned-political activist Billy Bragg. .
The majority of the ‘searches’ were unsuccessful, or if encounters were gained, they were fleeting. In the example of Shaun Woodward, the eventual interview only accounted for only one tenth of the total report – and was noticeably shorter than a sequence featuring the reporter, Michael Crick, waiting for Mr Woodward in the reception area of the local newspaper offices. Of course, all these candidates had a place in the election debate, often personifying deeper issues such as political sleaze, Conservative tax policy or Labour’s shift to the right. The problem with these reports is that the ‘hunt’ became the central focus and the issues themselves were often sidelined.
With regards to Europe, the most intriguing “missing MP” was Kenneth Clarke. His silence during the campaign was referred to on numerous occasions, and this appeared to captivate – and in some respects even exasperate – reporters. The dynamic had been fixed from the outset: as soon as Europe emerged as an election issue, a paradigm was established which was to carry through to the end. On 23rd of May, Andrew Marr commented for the Today Programme:
Perhaps William Hague’s greatest service to his Party in the last few years was constructing this very careful compromise to hold it together on Europe. Margaret Thatcher from one side, and the Europhiles from the other are constantly tugging, trying to break it apart.
Lady Thatcher had appeared on cue, but as the campaign narrative unfolded pro-European Conservatives, such as Mr Clarke or Ian Taylor, failed to make their entrance. Of course, prominent Tory Europhiles did join the debate – Leon Brittan, for example, in a typically coruscating interview on PM – but actual prospective parliamentary candidates were unforthcoming, and Kenneth Clarke as the most prominent and well-known swiftly joined the ranks of the ‘missing’. PM on the 24th May contacted Mr Clarke’s local television station, to discover that his only local media appearance had been to discuss a proposed tram scheme; while on 29th May, Today presented, in their own words, an “utterly unscientific survey of voters canvassed in Ken Clarke’s Nottingham constituency”.
To make Mr Clarke’s silence newsworthy, and to ensure the established narrative framework remained intact, his decision to refrain from the Europe debate had to be imbued with negative or threatening connotations. Rather than seeing his silence as loyalty, or a commitment to party unity, there were suggestions that Mr Clarke had been ‘muzzled’ by the Conservative Party leadership (Today, 30th May); that Europhile Conservatives were keeping quiet to avoid recriminations after the predicted Tory defeat; or that the pro-Euro Tories would end their silence “with leadership-blasting artillery” on the day after the election (Today 29th May). The latter claim recurred on numerous occasions, although the predicted fireworks for the day after the election failed to materialise on the scale the reporting suggested. When Clarke’s finally did break his silence on Europe, it was singularly unspectacular – a speech in a private meeting of local candidates, surreptitiously recorded by the Independent, and – with no actual audio footage seemingly available – reported vicariously by the BBC.
Ultimately, however, the treatment of Kenneth Clarke was different from the other examples. The other ‘missing’ candidates had each become ‘newsworthy’ during, or immediately prior to the campaign – principally through their words or actions. Conversely, Kenneth Clarke was primarily ‘missing’ from the election battle in terms of what he had not done. The quest to find him seemed to be based the broadcasters’ own expectations and preconceived ideas of how the debate on Europe should evolve, and to inject a line of “controversy” that was out of proportion to the coverage mounted. The overall impact was to add to the impression that the Conservatives were split on Europe beyond what was warranted by actual events. The debate between Europhiles and Euro-sceptics within the party was clearly continuing during the campaign, but there was little evidence that Mr Clarke was anxious to push it at the level of what was reported.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 82 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Daily log of coverage
May 14 Tim Franks mentioned in an interview with John Humphrys on Today that fifty business leaders, including some ‘switchers’ from Conservative to Labour had signed a letter to The Times supporting Labour’s handling of the economy. Mr Franks commented in one section:
The Conservatives are saying, ‘well, business people shouldn’t be too happy with what Labour are doing, because look at this, we’ve uncovered documents that show that at a European Union meeting today, petrol tax will be on the agenda, and there looks like there’s going to be an upward harmonisation of that.’ So two horrors to behold – first of all European Union integration, and secondly, higher taxes. Labour says it’s nonsense.
This was an early report of what was to remain the Tory’s central campaigning thrust – that there was a hidden agenda of tax harmonisation. It was given suitable prominence – and immediately balanced with what was also to become Labour’s stock reply to almost all such claims about Europe: that they were nonsense.
The only main feature item on this edition of Today about the European Union was an interview with Sir Peter Tapsell, who, it was said, had drawn parallels between Herr Schroeder’s plans for a federal Europe and the European ambitions of the Nazis. It was pointed out in the intro that Sir Peter had already been “slapped over the wrist” by William Hague, and the interview was designed to allow Sir Peter to explain his stance and his reasons for invoking the links with Mein Kampf. The interview gave him space to explain his views. The questioning was angled at establishing just how far his views were divergent from those of the main Conservative policy on Europe. Sir Peter said briefly to say that he saw no discrepancy between his own view on the Euro and that of his party. It was unfortunate that this important point was not explored further and that Sir Peter was cut off as he explained why.
Sue MacGregor put it to Sir Peter that “to many people” his remarks “were offensive”. This clearly marked Sir Peter down as a potential pariah, and perhaps William Hague thought so also. But in an election campaign, to avoid any suggestion of over-egging or partisanship, “controversial” may have been better. Of note was that this was the only item on Europe on the first formal day on the campaign. From the outset, the editorial intention seemed to be to explore to the full the Tory divisions over Europe, and to expose contradictions in the Euro-sceptic area.
Sue MacGregor also interviewed Nigel Farage of UKIP about its manifesto launch later in the day, noting that his party was the only one in the election wanting complete withdrawal from the EU, and that it had attracted 7% of the votes and three MEPs in the European elections. She asked first if UKIP stood for anything more than withdrawal from Europe.
Nigel Farage said his party was launching a full manifesto “most of which couldn’t be done” while the UK was part of the European Union. He said his part would talk about how fisheries and agriculture would be run “and small businesses freed up”.
Sue MacGregor did not ask for any further elaboration on this point, but asked whether he claimed the party was “not anti-European”. Mr Farage explained that the party was not anti-European but anti EU, and added that an independence dividend would be worth £20bn a year.
Sue MacGregor said that when it came to the national vote (as compared to the European Elections) UKIP’s share was “absolutely minuscule”, and asked where he was going to concentrate its efforts. Mr Farage claimed that UKIP and the Referendum party at the last election had achieved 1m votes, with Miss MacGregor intervening to say that it “was only a percentage of 1% in the national Parliamentary
Mr Farage asserted that that had been four years ago, and that issues such as the metric martyr made people realise that the EU was making an impact on people’s lives. Sue MacGregor asked him where the party was going to concentrate its efforts. Mr Farage said it would be in the South West, the South and parts of the Midlands “and may even win a few seats”. Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 83 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Sue MacGregor then said that David Heathcoat Amory, the Tory industry spokesman, had contended that:
it makes no sense at all for your party to stand for Euro-sceptic Tory seats, it’s insane. In other words, people like him, who have a small majority will point to people like you and say you’re simply splitting the Tory vote . . .
NF: Well. . . .
SM: . . . and letting either the Lib Dems, depending on the area, or Labour in.
NF: Well, Heathcoat-Amory also called us a rabble. And he was right, we are a rabble.
SM: You’re proud to be a rabble?
NF: Proud to be a rabble! We’re a mish-mash of people who previously have been Conservatives, Lib Dems, Labour, rich, old, black, white – we’re a complete cross- section of society. And what Mr Heathcoat-Amory doesn’t understand is that in fact nationally, we will take more votes from Liberal Democrats and Labour than we’ll take from the Conservative Party. This is not a right-wing/left-wing issue – this is an issue about who governs Britain.
Sue MacGregor then asserted that, if UKIP split the Euro-sceptic Tory vote away into something that didn’t count anymore, “they’re going to be furious with you, and you won’t have achieved
NF: Well, they might be furious with us, but frankly what has Euro-scepticism achieved? You know, we are not Euro-sceptics in the UKIP, we’re not doubtful, we’ve made our minds up, we think Britain should exit the European Union and renegotiate a proper free-trade agreement, which is what we thought we’d signed up for back in 1972.
SM: The trouble is, history shows that single-issue parties – one only has to look back to Sir James Goldsmith in Britain – don’t have a hope.
NF: Well, as I’ve just explained to you – we’re not a single-issue party, we’re putting forward today a full manifesto for the way in which we think Britain should be governed. But surely, this question, the European question, should be what this General Election is all about.
In this interview, Nigel Farage was thus given the framework to put across the basic points of the UKIP approach, including their withdrawal policy, the savings that the party estimated could be made, and the aspiration to win a number of seats through cross-party support.
Sue MacGregor asked Mr Farage to clarify the difference between anti- Europe and anti-EU and put it to him that support for the party was “minuscule” (though perhaps “minuscule” was not the best word to apply to 1m votes). Overall, these were a series of reasonable points which Mr Farage was given adequate time to rebut.
In the second half the interview, the primary aim was to suggest that UKIP did not have much chance of winning any significant level of support, and that it could split the Tory Euro-sceptic vote. Miss MacGregor did not explore at all the point made by Mr Farage that support came from all parts of the political spectrum. This was to become the central editorial approach to UKIP – that most of all, it was a threat to Conservatives; UKIP’s own contentions about having much broader support were largely ignored in the consideration of constituency reports.
PM chose to mention in its headlines that an ICM poll for Radio 1’s Newsbeat had found that that voters aged 18-22 weren’t interested in the Euro. Similar poll findings about the alleged irrelevance of Europe as an election issue featured in reporting through the campaign
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 84 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
PM also carried a report from UKIP’s prospects in Falmouth and Camborne. Reporter Chris Hogg reported that the big question was whether UKIP would inherit the (not disclosed) votes cast for the Referendum Party in 1997, as well as those actually cast for UKIP. He added that “analysts suggest many who voted UKIP or Referendum last time had given up on the Tories”, before asking “so how much will the Conservatives have to do to win them back?”
Mr Hogg concluded:
The maths is tight here – Labour’s majority was just under 2700 last time, more than 3500 votes went to the Referendum Party and UKIP combined. That means those swing voters could decide the election in this constituency. The question is whether that opportunity is more tempting than demonstrating their support for the UKIP.
This was a constructive look at the prospects for UKIP in that it included interviews with three figures who supported the party, and explored elements of their reasons. But, having said at the beginning that the constituency was a three-way marginal, it went on to present the key issue to be whether UKIP would take votes from the Conservative party. There was no mention of the likely impact on the Liberal Democrat (as they were strongly pro-Euro) – or of the impact on the Labour majority of a swing to UKIP from its supporters.
In arriving at this judgement, Mr Hogg appeared to be ignoring UKIP’s stated belief that it was not only targeting Tory voters. Christopher Hogg did not explore this point at all, something which was to become a hallmark of the editorial approach to both UKIP and Euro-scepticism – a narrow focus on the belief that the only Euro-sceptic support was from within the divided Tory ranks.
Both the 10pm news and Newsnight mentioned the launch of UKIP briefly.
May 15 On May 15, the day that Paul Sykes called for a referendum on the withdrawal from Europe, William Hague on the 10pm news was said by George Alagaiah to have told his candidates that they would not be disciplined for supporting the call – thus introducing the idea that, for the Tory party, European issues carried disciplinary connotations. He asked Andrew Marr “how difficult” the matter was for Mr Hague. Andrew Marr replied that it wasn’t because the document published by Mr Sykes also contained Labour names – but he went on to add that there was a “danger” for all parties because the “political establishment” in this country “very much didn’t want to have” a referendum on continued membership. Mr Marr therefore introduced at the very outset of the campaign the concept that the questioning of the continued commitment to Europe was beyond “the political establishment” – whatever that might be – and therefore, by implication, extremist.
This sort of analysis set the tone for Today’s coverage of European issues. The interviewee was Tory candidate Roger Gale, who it turned out – though this was not mentioned in the link – was one of the alleged signatories of the call by Paul Sykes for a referendum on withdrawal from the EU. The choice of Mr Gale – rather than (for example) Labour’s Austin Mitchell, who spoke on Newsnight – suggested an editorial judgement that the referendum call was more of a problem for the Tories than for Labour. Roger Gale was given ample space to explain why he wanted a referendum. But it was also noticeable that John Humphrys put it to him that the idea of renegotiating the Nice Treaty was “absolutely preposterous” (not ‘impractical’ or `maybe difficult’), thereby again associating Conservative views on Europe, and the whole withdrawal concept with extremism. Roger Gale was given adequate space to counter the point, and Mr Humphrys was using the type of language that would be used by Labour. But the job of an interviewer is not automatically to take the debate into the adversarial terms of political opponents simply or crudely, especially in periods when balance is specially required. There is abundant evidence that Labour wanted to portray the Conservatives as ‘extreme’ in their position on Europe – here John Humphrys seemed to be loosely following that approach.
The second item on Today about Europe also turned the spotlight firmly on the perceived problems of the Tories. The first constituency visit of the campaign was to Harrogate, which the Conservatives had lost to the Liberal Democrats in 1997 and where Sarah Nelson now contended the Conservative party was facing major problems from UKIP. She did not say why UKIP was not also a threat to the Liberal
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 85 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Democrats (as UKIP and the Conservatives contended) or why, in any detail, this was the main issue. Ms Nelson also made a major point of that the Conservative candidate had not wished to be interviewed, and claimed that this was a “gift for his opponents”.
An interview of Paul Sykes by James Naughtie gave Mr Sykes adequate space to explain why he was advocating a referendum on withdrawal. Half way through, there was a clear suggestion that his policies were “daft”, and Mr Naughtie chose not to explore Mr Sykes allegation that this was an issue that divided more than the Conservative party.
Newsnight introduced the possibility in its headlines that both parties might be split by Europe. This was an important piece – the only one that considered in real depth that Labour might have its own problems with Europe, predicated on that some Labour MPs, as well as Tories, had signed a call for a referendum on continued membership of the EU.
A central feature was an interview with Austin Mitchell, the Labour candidate, in which he straightforwardly backed the Paul Sykes referendum call, and accused Jeremy Paxman of being “patronising” in the way that the issue was dealt with. It showed vividly that Mr Mitchell had no problem with his Euro-scepticism, and had not been coerced into signing the Sykes document. Later, the item also included an interview with Tim Collins, the Conservative party deputy chairman, who firmly rebutted allegations put to him that this matter was a major disciplinary affair for the party. The questioning of him by Jeremy Paxman was fierce and persistent. Throughout, he was told not to mention the Labour party, even though a central part of his response was that there were members of other parties that wanted a European referendum, and therefore the importance to the Conservative party was not as great as was being implied. Jeremy Paxman’s toughness towards him created the impression of that Mr Collins had some major explaining to do.
By contrast, the main editorial effort appeared to be aimed at trying to show that, despite Mr Mitchell’s overt support for the Sykes initiative, general Labour support for it was minimal – and by implication, that the main problem was for the Tories. Noticeably, although this story was most surprising in that there was Labour support for a withdrawal referendum – and a Labour rank and file supporter was interviewed about it – the main thrust of editorial questioning and analysis by the BBC’s own correspondent, on this occasion, Michael Crick, was aimed squarely at the problem in Conservative terms. This, for example, was a Jeremy Paxman’s question to Mr Crick:
How big a problem is this for the Conservatives to begin with?
Michael Crick: Well, I think it’s a much bigger problem for the Conservatives than it is for Labour, simply because Europe is the issue that they don’t want to explode in this campaign like it did in 1997, where John Major . . . there were several candidates and Ministers who weren’t toeing the party line on Europe, and John Major had to step in; and on the other hand he didn’t sack them from the front bench – and I think the great fear is that that will happen again. It’s a discipline issue essentially really, for William Hague, especially after the John Townend affair.
Mr Crick argued that the document was less of a problem for Labour because there was evidence that their signatories had been duped in to signing. He conceded that, if it were found that these signatories had signed voluntarily, then the importance would be more – but made it clear that he believed that on balance, he thought they had been tricked. .
This clearly set the framework – Europe was a bigger problem for the Conservatives than for Labour. Yet the empirical evidence for his assumption was drawn mainly from the past, and did not entirely square with the day’s evidence, which clearly presented that there were issues for both parties, not just the Conservatives.
The Labour party had decided not to appear on the programme. This was first mentioned not in editorial links, but by Mr Collins ( later confirmed by Jeremy Paxman), who made no comment about why Labour had declined. Yet this was an important point. It clearly illustrated that officially, there was something here that Labour did not want to talk about. By contrast, the he Conservatives had put up the deputy chairman, and were clearly keen to take head-on the issues involved. In the context of the
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 86 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______general editorial approach, it is hard to resist the conclusion that, if the Conservatives had declined to appear at the level they did, a much bigger issue would have been made of it.
Matthew Taylor, the Labour “substitute” was interviewed for less time and less toughly than Mr Collins. It was put to him that Labour was split on this issue – he contended that the whole issue, though there were ‘mavericks’ in Labour – was one that split the Conservatives more than Labour, and on which the electorate perceived the Conservatives to be split.
Matthew Taylor closed his analysis with the contention that there were just two or three people within the Labour party who fell into the ‘maverick’ category. It was also relevant, against the background of claims that the Conservatives were split on Europe, to establish editorially how many people might be involved. Here, at the outset of the campaign, there was no questioning or analysis (from Michael Crick, for example) of what the scale was.
May 16 Europe made its first appearance in main bulletins on May 16. The editorial line adopted about the publication that morning of the Paul Sykes letter was that Labour was condemning it, and describing the alleged support by Labour MPs as a “scam”.
Labour and the Conservatives have also had to explain why several of their candidates have signed a petition calling for a referendum on whether Britain should withdraw from the European Union. Labour insists that it was simply a scam by anti-European zealots, but William Hague has indicated that he has no intention of disciplining the four Tory Candidates who have given their support.
Again, the editorial tone linked to an item about a suggestion of questioning continued involvement in the EU was that it was highly questionable – a scam – and backed by zealots. Labour had said that. It was in their interests to do so. To elevate this language to the level of the main reporting on the topic helped to form the impression that the whole exercise was extreme. Further, it was suggested by the phraseology about William Hague that he was ignoring “extremism” – as if withdrawal was in that category. The fact that the zealot line was put in the mouths of Labour did not make the statement objective or validate its use as the main description of the initiative. It needed more balanced language to achieve fairness.
Further coverage of the story included another interview of Paul Sykes, along with ones of his constituency Conservative candidate, David Curry, Tory party chairman Michael Ancram and leader of the House of Commons Margaret Beckett. There was also mention of a search for alleged Labour signees of the advertisement.
The key thrust with Michael Ancram – in a very brief exchange - was to explore whether the four who had signed the call would face any kind of disciplinary action: :
Well, what we’ve said is that this is essentially a non-event, if I may so, in terns of the BBC’s obsession with Euro splits. I mean these are four candidates whose views are pretty well known.
SM: But no disciplining of them?
MA: No, we’ve always said in our party there are people who take specific views on Europe and on the Euro, and we all for instance know that Peter Tapsell and Ken Clarke have had very distinct views on the Euro, they’re not going to change those, but what is important is we have a very clear position ourselves as a party, which was endorsed by the vast majority of our members, and is supported by the overwhelming majority of our candidates. That is the Party’s position, that is what we are campaigning on, and that is to be in Europe but not run by Europe, and to fight to keep the pound at this election
Mr Ancram thus had the space to explain why it was not viewed as a disciplinary matter.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 87 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Earlier David Curry was interviewed to establish why, as a Tory candidate, he did not believe that there should be a referendum. Mr Curry , whose constituency included Mr Sykes, argued that Britain knew what it was signing up to when it joined the EU and now needed to signal its clear commitment to the project. John Humphrys responded:
Well, maybe that question ought to be addressed to your own leadership, because there are many people who believe – and there’s lots of evidence for this too, talking to members of your own party, your own candidates – believe that they’ve actually had enough of Europe, they really want to get out. That’s not the policy, certainly, but that’s the underlying thing.
DC: If you talk about Europe to anybody in the United Kingdom, to the local bowling club, the local WI, no doubt even to journalists on the Today Programme, you will find opinions are quite sharply divided. This is one of those issues in which no party is ever going to achieve a complete homogeneity of views. The sensible thing is to lay down a prospectus for when one is in government, and when one is in government when Prime Ministers on the whole tend to find that their [word unclear], but when one isn’t in government, then one has quite simply got to be sensible about it and realise that people who have had long-standing views are not going to change them, and this is an issue where people have got to be able to pursue their own conscience.
Margaret Beckett was asked to give her views on the Paul Sykes initiative:
So I think it’s a bit of a scam quite honestly and a bit of a cover for what is clearly a big problem they’ve got with it in the Tory Party, where William Hague says he doesn’t mind if any of them, half the Tory Party signs up to the idea of us leaving Europe; which, when we’ve got something like three and a half million jobs at stake, through our membership of the European Union is quite an extraordinary stance to take.
JH: But if you’ve really got seven of your lot signing, that’s a lot, isn’t it?
MB: Well, no, that’s not what they were signing.
JH: Or are they too daft to know what they signed? Or what.
MB: I think you’ll find that they signed something that they thought was committing themselves to say, ‘well yes you should have a referendum on Europe’ and some of them apparently amended it to say, ‘yes of course we’re going to have a referendum on the
JH: Gosh, how naïve.
MB: Well, listen John, we’re having a General Election, and during the General Election we’re all candidates and you get a million pieces of demanding that you state your position on this, state your position on that, state your position on yogic flying. And you know some people try not to fill them in, and some people think, ‘yes, it’s a democratic process, I’ll give people this information’, and sometimes you find it’s not been done in good faith.
The four-part coverage of this matter within the programme was strangely superficial – and while it interviewed all key participants in the affair, the brevity of the questioning and the nature of the editorial set-ups did not really help listeners to gauge what was going on, particularly on the Labour side. Mr Sykes claimed that Labour MPs had signed the ad, Mrs Beckett said they hadn’t – and the programme offered little further editorial guidance other than that the Labour MPs were not proving easy to contact. Mrs Beckett said without challenge that the Tories faced bigger problems on this than her party – though she was pushed on the naiveté of her members. The editorial framework seemed to be geared towards showing that there were definitely divisions within the Tories (through the David Curry interview and the questioning of Mr Ancram) rather than trying to explore what was also going on within Labour., There was no mention, for example of the Labour MP who had signed – Austin Mitchell – and who had admitted he knew what he was signing. An interview with him would have
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 88 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______given a completely different perspective and shown clearly that Euro-sceptics also existed within Labour, despite Mrs Beckett’s glossing over of the point. Perhaps the judgement was that he had already appeared on Newsnight, but in order to mount an unquestionably neutral exploration of this issue, it would have been better if the views of a commentator had been sought who knew with some certainty what level of support for the referendum was likely to exist in both parties, and who could have talked neutrally about the issue of Euro-scepticism as it existed in all of the parties.
May 17 The main event on May 17 on Today was an interview of William Hague. Around one third of the questioning by John Humphrys focused on Europe – and mainly on why the Conservatives were only committing to keeping the pound for the lifetime of a Parliament , rather than permanently. The answers given by Mr Hague were straightforward. In fact, they were almost identical to those given in an interview in an interview with Mr Humphrys almost a year before on the Today programme, on June 10, 2000, in the build up to the Feira summit. Mr Humphrys was again trying to shed light on the problems he perceived that existed in the committing to the pound only for the duration of one Parliament . Having conducted the same interview with Mr Hague twice before, he must have had a clear inkling that – despite some evidence that there was a shift in some elements of the party towards wanting a referendum on the issue of membership - the answers were likely to be broadly the same. Given that this was the only opportunity for the Today audience to be given an insight into the Tory general election policies from the leader himself, it seemed a rather unoriginal way of proceeding. In the event, Mr Hague stuck to the same line of answer as before; there were no new revelations and no shift at all in the emphasis of the policy. The interview therefore continued in line with the general drift of coverage to date, in seeking to establish that the Tory policy on Europe was intrinsically illogical and did not square with other commitments, for example to the monarchy or nuclear deterrence. Mr Humphrys’ questioning revealed that – in effect – the Conservative party had pulled together an awkward compromise in a key area of election strategy.
Whether this was the key issue on Europe to put to Mr Hague is a complex judgement – but there were a raft of other important points, for example the possibility of renegotiating Nice and the implications for the UK and for NATO of the defence strategy. These could have elucidated more the actual differences between the parties on European policy – and exposed some of the difficulties facing the Tories in their Euro-scepticism, while avoiding the impression that the only aim of Mr Humphrys was to retread old ground.
It is also interesting that Mr Blair was not questioned at all during his Today appearance (earlier in the week) about Europe. John Humphrys focused entirely on Keith Vaz This was an important interview, but there were issues relating to Europe that could also have been put to Mr Blair.
On PM on May 17, a feature item aimed at exploring the extent to which Tory party unity was under pressure from candidates advocating a withdrawal from the European Union. It included commentary from BBC correspondent Jonathan Beale, and a set up which claimed that Ian Taylor was saying that the UK would benefit from joining the Euro, while another candidate, Nick Serpell, was saying that he never wanted to join. The piece also included a claim from Francis Maude that this range of opinions was not a problem for the Tories. Although the Paul Sykes letter had been signed by at least one Labour MP – Austin Mitchell – the analysis here was mainly – as Matthew Taylor had claimed on Newsnight - that this was an issue for the Conservative party. Jonathan Beale acknowledged that this was also a problem for other parties, but did not say how big a problem, before coming to his central point:
but it’s always been a bigger problem for the Tories, because we remember the last election – and because they perceive themselves to be a Euro-sceptic party and have a Euro-sceptic message.
That may be the case, but he made no mention of an important further point that it would have been useful for listeners to have been told in this context – that a vote among Conservative candidates had endorsed the current party policy overwhelmingly. Attitudes could have moved since then – and this may have been evidence of that movement – but Michael Ancram was making that very point the
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 89 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______previous day, and it was surely relevant here in helping viewers to gauge the significance of this apparent breakaway from central party policy. As it was, it came across that here was a major fissure developing, not only in the South West but also in other areas.
It would also have been helpful to listeners – given the importance of the Euro-sceptic vote in the Southwest with the apparent strong support for UKIP (evidenced by the European elections) - to have some analysis of the likely impact of movements on both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. As it was, this was presented one dimensionally, mainly as a Conservative problem.
Mr Beale’s reasoning why this was a bigger problem for the Tories was interesting indeed – essentially on the rather circular basis that because it had been a problem in the past, it was also one now. He closed noting that the Tories were more unified than before on Europe. But the main thrust of his analysis had been aimed at showing otherwise, and the impression given, despite these closing words, was to the contrary.
On the 10pm news, Andrew Marr, discussing the opinion polls, said that the Tories would be going to put emphasis on European issues, despite this showing as an issue that was unimportant to voters. He said that by contrast, Labour would be campaigning on health and education :
There is, however, a tactical problem, I think, for the Conservatives here. The polls confirm that health and education are way ahead as the issues that voters care most about. Now tomorrow, the Conservatives are going on one of their very strong issues, Asylum, and they want to end the campaign going on and on about the Euro and the European Union. And yet that doesn’t seem to be a big issue for the voters. In distinction, the Labour Party are hammering Health and Education relentlessly, and tomorrow, for instance, they’re bringing out this attractive, small document ‘Your Family’, more like a magazine, which appears to show the Prime Minister stealing a camera from a small boy for obscure reasons. Nevertheless, their issues are Health and Education, and they’re absolutely confident that they are the right ones.
From the outset, therefore, Mr Marr, using the opinion polls as evidence, cast the Conservative campaign as being focused on the wrong issue. He contrasted the problems of this choice with a much more positive phrasing of what Labour was choosing: “they are absolutely confident that they are on bias, but it was intended to focus yet again on Tory problems.
May 18 The newspaper review on Today said:
The Times reports on its front page that consumers across Europe are going to face quite a bit of chaos when the first Euro notes and coins are brought in. That happens at the beginning of next year. The Times says many businessmen are pretty concerned that shops and cash machines will be running out of cash. Apparently it’s all because of mismanagement – according to the Times, anyway – by the European Central Bank
This drew attention to perceived problems with the Euro. Newsnight also explored this brief item in greater depth in a report broadcast on the 23rd May.
Former Conservative Immigration Minister Charles Wardle was interviewed about his views on the Tories’ asylum and immigration policy. The introduction to the piece stated that Mr Wardle was supporting a UK Independence Party candidate in the election. He said of the Conservative Party’s plans for asylum “I think it sounds tough; it sounds tough when looking for votes, but it’s not practical and it’s not a deterrent.” He was critical of both Ann Widdecombe and William Hague, accusing them of “headline grabbing” with impractical policies.
Mr Wardle’s link with UKIP was not made clear. The word ‘supporting’ did not explain fully if Mr Wardle had become a UKIP member, was involved somehow in their campaign, or was simply backing the party as a voter. Listeners were left unsure as to how far Wardle’s stance tallied with that of UKIP with regard to asylum and immigration issues.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 90 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
The 10pm new mentioned briefly that the Green Party’s manifesto included a commitment to introduce a higher rate of tax for top earners. It added:
Among many environmental measures, the Greens would replace VAT with a new Eco- tax, oppose membership of the European Single Currency, and they’d legalise cannabis.
This brief summary of the Green Party’s manifesto pledges was the only occasion on which the party’s opposition to the Euro was mentioned, during the whole monitoring period. In a similar report on Newsnight later that evening, their opposition to the Single Currency was moved out of the frame entirely, being replaced by their commitment to scrap university tuition fees, re-nationalise the railways and introduce a citizens income to replace benefits.
May 21 On May 21, following an item which said that the Conservative party had won the support of 150 business leaders, a “balancing” item in the newspaper review said that the Times had reported claims by Lord Britton that the Tories were wrong to campaign on Europe. This continued the trend of choosing stories which highlighted perceived Tory splits on Europe. The piece was very prominent in the Times, whose agenda and reasons for publishing it were not made clear. For listeners of Today it was not put into any sort of context – nor was there any opportunity for reaction from the Conservatives.
Today had an item in the business news on the record balance of trade deficit. Though this story had a very important bearing on the UK’s relationship with the US and Europe – a central issue in the development of ties with the EU – this was given little prominence.
The points to emerge from the piece were that:
¾ The US was the UK’s most important trading party ¾ The exchange rate with the Euro was scarcely deterring UK exports to Europe ¾ In any case, UK exporters were moving in to other markets ¾ There was more government support for export activity.
These were all very significant issues which could have give a peg to discuss the relationship with Europe and the wider world. The opportunity was not taken either on Today or in PM. The impact on UK politics was discussed scarcely at all – perhaps ironic, as it has been widely claimed by political commentators that the publication of poor balance of trade figures shortly before the 1970 general election was responsible for a late swing towards the Tories.
Andrew Marr mentioned on the 10pm news that Mrs Thatcher had given and interview to the Daily Mail in which she said she would support William Hague and his stance on Europe– something she had not done for John Major.
May 22 On May 22, Andrew Marr again mentioned in an interview on Today, the Daily Mail article. He said, in analysing its importance in relation to the campaign:
What Labour will be asking, I guess - are saying already – is: privately we know that Margaret Thatcher wants us to pull out of the EU in due course, this endorsement shows that she thinks that William Hague agrees with her. So as the Conservatives bring the Euro and Europe onto the agenda, Labour are going to come back and say it’s really about withdrawal. I think probably that is where this election campaign is going next in terms of the big arguments.
This suggested unequivocally that the real Conservative agenda on Europe might be withdrawal. and he brought Labour’s attack line on that firmly into the framework. The impact was that the Tory agenda on Europe was not what was being said officially – just as Labour might have wished.
On the 10pm news, Mr Marr continued to highlight the Conservative problems over Europe, this time pointing out that, in making her speech, she had said she never wanted to join the Euro, a line which
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 91 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______went beyond the official party line. He said firmly, too, that Lady Thatcher, in private, wanted withdrawal from the EU – ad claimed that this was “very dangerous” for the Conservative party. The dwelling on problems and disagreements – without any accompanying analysis of the real scale - continued.
Newsnight continued the same theme, claiming that Lady Thatcher joining the campaign had badly misfired, with Jeremy Paxman adding:
It’s almost enough to make you feel sorry for William Hague. He got Labour angry and embarrassed about plans to raise taxes. Then he summons, like some apparition from beyond the grave, Margaret Thatcher to try to revive the fortunes of his unhappy party. The hope was that touching the hem of her garment might shake off their political palsy. And what does she do? She delivers a policy statement on what William Hague believes to be his most potent weapon – which contradicts his own position.
This was clearly designed to cast the Tories predicament as severe. It was followed by soundbites from both the Labour and Liberal parties saying that the party was split “from top to bottom” – yet here again, there was no analysis of how deep the splits were or what it really meant for the party.
Martha Kearney, in her analysis, went even further:
There’s some suggestion that the situation could be getting worse. Perhaps one indicator of low Conservative morale was the fact that Baroness Thatcher couldn’t fill the hall with activists (over shot of empty back seats).
This was questionable journalism. This was the only occasion during the course of the campaign that attendance at rallies was mentioned. Her comparison with the same hall being filled by the singer Mel C was spurious.
There followed a tough interview by Jeremy Paxman of Andrew Lansley. He was given clear space to frame his replies but, the questioning was relentlessly focused on establishing whether Mrs Thatcher’s views were at variance with Conservative party policy on the Euro, and if so, whether this was embarrassing. Mr Lansley, in the course of answering, made several points – that Mrs Thatcher had supported general Conservative policies, that she had attacked Mr Blair for giving away the UK’s sovereignty, and that the policy on the Euro was both for the duration of next Parliament , and had been supported by 85% of members in a vote. There was no attempt by Mr Paxman to go beyond the issue of the apparent split; it was clearly judged that this was the most important point for viewers to be further informed about. This was a well-worn path in coverage of Tory affairs, perhaps justified in the light of Lady Thatcher’s intervention, but nonetheless, disappointingly one-dimensional.
May 23 Today’s bulletins were led on May 23, for the first time during the campaign by an item on Europe – a claim by the Tories that an EU document revealed plans for tax harmonisation. A bulletin piece by Sean Lay set the agenda for a number of items that morning, including important interviews of Francis Maude and Robin Cook and (again, after May 14)) of Sir Peter Tapsell - whose views seemed to underline Mr Lay’s point that the views held by individual Tory candidates and members were at variance with the main party line.
Mr Lay pointed out the existence of the Tory fears about the document, clearly articulating the main claim that tax harmonisation was on the agenda. But most of his commentary was an exploration of why first Labour, and then the commission, said the claims were unfounded. The Labour points were fundamental to the proper consideration of this item. But the inclusion of the commission’s viewpoint was less straightforward, in that the listener had no means of knowing the weight or veracity of the source used. The treatment by Mr Lay seemed to imply that this was an absolute rebuttal of the truth of the Tory claims. The Tories later strongly denied this and attacked the Commission’s intervention. In the interests of balance, it would have been fairer for a line to have been included that there was some suggestion that there were mixed views about the commission’s stance and denial.
As it was, the main impression created was that the Conservatives claims were unambiguously denied by the commission.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 92 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
This was reinforced at 6.36, when John Humphrys interviewed BBC correspondents Jonathan Beale and Angus Roxborough about the Tory claims. They were asked to put the Tory points into context and weigh their veracity. Tim Franks initially paraphrased what the Tory claims were:
It certainly will be as far as the Tories are concerned, they want to ride out on a storm of applause about what they’re saying about Europe and, of course, the Euro. Although, today, what they’re trying to bring in front of everybody’s eyes is what they see as a secret European Commission document, which shows that the Commission fully intends to harmonise tax rates, that’s rates of VAT on even things like zero rated goods that we have at the moment – children’s clothes, newspapers, food, as well as income tax; and the Labour Government if re-elected would just roll over and play dead in the face of the Commission’s plans.
This clearly elucidated the range of the claims and what they were based upon. Angus Roxborough, however, who John Humphrys spoke to next, had put the claims to the commission, and he reported the reaction from an “insider” that they were “pure tosh” and that, contrary to what was being said by the Conservatives, the UK was prevailing in its views against tax harmonisation. This phrase was later used by Robin Cook of prima facie evidence that the Conservative concerns were themselves unfounded.
This was what Mr Roxborough had picked up and it was entirely reasonable to report it. However, the way it was handled made it difficult for the listener to judge. Was the commission view, from an “insider”, the official view? Further, was a commission insider, whoever he was, likely to be genuinely objective – or pushing a biased pro-commission line? The Tories were later to say that such interventions were “unwarranted interference”, and John Humphrys pointed out (in the interview with Robin Cook) that this was an unofficial quote, but Mr Roxborough himself did not explain that there might be some doubt – surely the job of a BBC correspondent on the ground, who was acting as the eyes and ears for the listener.
In the next part of the sequence, Tim Franks did mention that the Tories challenged the views of the commission put forward in the Roxborough commentary. This went some way towards helping to clarify for the listener that what was being contended could be open to different interpretation, especially from the Tory perspective. But it still did not quite get to grips with the central issue of why the Tories’ view was so different from Labour’s and those of the commission. Further, he concluded - it would be very hard for the Tories to “make stick” that Labour was pledged to tax harmonisation, another point which suggested that the Tory line did not accord with established facts, as opposed to contestable opinion from within the Commission .
Angus Roxborough finally pointed out that the positioning document also suggested that harmonisation of VAT , or “smoothing out distortions” in the parlance of the commission, would lead to lower taxes in the UK. He did not mention what the Conservative perspective on this was.
This was a crucial piece of commentary, and effectively amounted to a near-demolition of the central Conservative claim. Francis Maude was later able to put his rebuttal of this – and to re-assert the Tory claims – but the early acceptance of the commission’s response seemed to be distinctly one-sided reporting.
There followed an interview of Robin Cook and Francis Maude about the Tory claims. Robin Cook immediately used the ‘pore tosh’ line of Angus Roxborough to discount any suggestion of harmonisation. This was a wide-ranging interview. It illuminated the differences in approach to Europe between the Tories and Labour. John Humphrys pushed firmly in establishing various areas of policy and approach.
It did not really explore in any depth, however, the case that the Conservatives had over the commission, and it was dominated by Mr Cook’s claims about the Tories and their divisions. John Humphrys following on three occasions points he had brought up. These areas were interesting and important enough to warrant clarification, but it seemed – on these occasions - that Mr Cook was setting the framework for the interview, and pushing it towards putting the Tories on to the defensive. Mr Humphrys then himself returned, with Mr Maude, to the theme he had tackled the previous week
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 93 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______with Mr Hague – the precise terms of the opposition to the Euro, and whether it was a commitment which extended in reality beyond what was stated in official policy. The answer elicited from Mr Maude was more or less the same as from Mr Hague.
In this sense, the interview concentrated on old ground, and did not explore the new; the debate about Europe was again largely confined to exploring alleged Tory splits and the intentions of Labour over the five assessments pledges, rather than exploring other issues, which might also have been more taxing for Labour, such as what might happen in the wake of Nice, or the re-emergence on the Ecofin agenda of the withholding tax, despite a claimed British victory on the topic at Feira..
This programme also contained another interview with Sir Peter Tapsell, who had expressed the view that the Nazi were the first to put forward the concept that lay behind the Single Currency. As on May 14, Sir Peter was given the time and space to explain why he thought this was the case, and why he thought that both Germany and France now wished to move towards tax harmonisation. John Humphrys questioned him using the suggestion that his views were “extreme” and “scare-mongering". Sir Peter was given the chance to explain why he thought they were not so.
This was another item that was produced with the apparent editorial aim of illustrating that the Conservative views on Europe were not unified; at the same time they contained “extremes” which were outside the reasonable political spectrum. The programme was on one level, presenting the full diversity of Europe-related opinion within the Conservative party – on the other it was associating such views with “scaremongering”. There was no parallel investigation of either the Labour Euro-sceptic camp, or the questioning of what Europhiles really wanted as their final agenda within Europe. Given the pressure for space on Today, it is hard to understand why Sir Peter Tapsell, who was advocating broadly similar views as before, warranted a second interview – other than as an illustration of Tory splits. No other backbencher from any part of the political spectrum was treated in this way.
Today also carried an item in which Andrew Marr gave his opinion on the importance of the Tory claims about tax harmonisation. It was set up using a clip from Malcolm Bruce, the Liberal Democrat:
They have this absolute hatred of everything European, which is no longer rational, which is why, of course, they want to rake up old news and pretend it’s some kind of new threat. And I think the real problem is, that although the Conservatives believe that their position on the Euro is popular, it is so confused and divided that it doesn’t really amount to a credible position at all.
This was a vivid illustration of how the Tory position on Europe was being portrayed by its opponents: that Euro-scepticism, based on mistrust of the continuing development of the European project, amounted to irrationality and hate. It was included without challenge or any counter-view other than Mr Marr’s own analysis. It was followed by a quote from Nigel Farage of UKIP, calling for a referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the EU. John Humphrys then asked Andrew Marr which party faced most problems because of Europe. He responded:
I think these tax harmonisation rows cause Labour some problems. This particular one may well have been overcooked, but there is no doubt that there is an agenda over time, which Labour, if re-elected is going to have to confront. And I think what’s very interesting is there are now quite real divisions inside Labour about how far to go down the tax harmonisation route. Gordon Brown at the Treasury has fought a very, very tough series of rearguard actions and seems to be making headway. But there are other people inside Labour and of course in the Lib Dems, who are much more integrationist. I think, however, what Margaret Thatcher said yesterday about ‘never’ is potent and difficult for the Conservatives at a greater extent, because there are a lot of people as it were in the wider Conservative family in the country who really have had it up to here with Europe and want out entirely. And once you start to open the door on that – and that seems to be her private view too – then, of course, the debate expands vastly beyond where it’s been in the last few years.
This was an important piece of analysis. Mr Marr accepted that there were problems within Labour, over both integration itself, and the rate at which it was acceptable. This was acknowledged here – but was not one of the election issues that was followed through to any great extent. The immediate
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 94 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______counter-thrust was that the problem was “potent and difficult” for the Conservatives because of the ‘never’ word by Lady Thatcher, and because there were those in the party who wanted out of Europe entirely.
John Humphrys then asked why these factors would not help the Tories in getting out their vote. Mr Marr replied:
Well, they’ve got UKIP, you see, snapping at their heels, and there are enough pro- European, Europhile heavy hitters left in the Tory Party just, you know, people like Ken Clarke, Ian Taylor and so on, they don’t want to lose them during a General Election campaign. Perhaps William Hague’s greatest service to his Party in the last few years was constructing this very careful compromise to hold it together on Europe. Margaret Thatcher from one side, and the Europhiles from the other are constantly tugging, trying to break it apart. If they lose this election it probably will break apart, but for now it’s desperately important for the Conservatives to hold that line.
In other words, the Tories were split on Europe – that only a very careful compromise was keeping together. Yet there was no attempt to help listeners by saying how big the split really was – no estimates of numbers, no mention of the vote within the party on support for the Euro. This was a weakness in the analysis which was not helpful for listeners.
The PM bulletin was led by:
Europe and Tax have been at the top of the election agenda. Labour has dismissed Tory claims that Britain will be forced by the European Commission to raise its taxes in line with the rest of the EU. The Commission says it has no plans to harmonise tax rates. The Liberal Democrats have accused the Conservatives of being confused and divided over Europe, they’re calling for a referendum on British membership of the Euro.
The emphasis was thus that there was no substance in the Tory claims about tax harmonisation; indeed in this headline treatment, the claims themselves were scarcely mentioned. This set the tone for the first part of more detailed coverage immediately after the bulletin.
The introduction from Clare English pointed to the Conservative divisions over Europe, as evidenced by Margaret Thatcher saying at an address the previous evening, ‘no’ to the Euro for good:
She coined the phrase herself: ‘Return of the Mummy’, but when Lady Thatcher swept back onto the Conservative centre stage last night in Plymouth, she returned to one of her own ancient themes: resistance to more European integration, and a sound rejection of the European Single Currency. Trouble was, although she shared a platform with her Party’s leader, William Hague, that’s where the common ground on the Euro ended. The former Prime Minister’s ‘No, nay, never’ to the Single Currency is at odds with Mr Hague’s one parliament period of rejection. Today the Tories sought to divert attention away from this apparent contradiction, by aiming their fire at Labour, and by trying to link the twin issues of tax rises and Europe.
The Conservatives – on one level – had succeeded in their aim of getting Europe on the election agenda, but the structure of the sequence was heavily on the counter-claims by other parties and by the EC. A soundbite from William Hague did – finally – mention what the Tory claims were:
What it contains removes any remaining doubt that the EU plans to take away Britain’s powers to decide its own tax rates. The document spells out steps to be take to harmonise Income Tax and VAT across Europe, and of course, for Brussels, harmonious taxation is higher taxation. The document talks of the necessity of coordinating national Income Tax systems. It says that on indirect taxes like VAT, a high degree of harmonisation is necessary – that could mean extending VAT to items like food, books, children’s clothes, that are zero-rated in Britain, and it confirms that the EU intends to standardise tax on petrol and diesel, and again, you can be sure that petrol tax wouldn’t be coming down under those plans.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 95 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Ms English immediately pointed out that there had been a denial by the EC that the contents of the document pointed to by the Conservatives meant that harmonisation was on the cards. She seemed to take the denial, in a soundbite from Frits Bolkestein, at face value – without reference to whether or not the commission might be open to challenge or have its own axe to grind – before saying that this had allowed Labour to “scent political blood” over this point, and to say that the party appeared divided over whether they wanted to stay out of the Euro forever. The clear impression of the sequence was that the Tories were in major trouble, both from splits from the their own ranks, and the discrediting of their claims about tax harmonisation. There was no attempt, however, to put into context the scale of the problems, or to introduce any mitigating information. The impression of big troubles was reinforced by a quote from Gordon Brown:
We can confirm that by this afternoon, there are now 80 Conservative candidates who have broken from the official line. There are 23 who have already called for renegotiation or complete withdrawal from the European Union. The truth is, the Tories are becoming a party increasingly defined by their divisions over Europe. As a growing number become more explicit about their real agenda of renegotiation of the terms of membership of Europe and even withdrawal.
Again, there was no attempt to put this into any kind of context, before Ms English added that Stephen Byers had also joined the fray:
The first group is against joining a single currency for the lifetime of the next parliament, even if it were in Britain’s economic interests to do so. The second group led, we heard last night, by Margaret Thatcher, would rule out ever joining a single currency.
Further input came from Charles Kennedy:
Why is it, that Mrs Thatcher can be quite clear cut in saying ‘never’, and yet he say ‘never’? Where does that leave political principles?
She then pointed out that “despite Tory efforts to intercept the Thatcher Euro torpedo by saying that these were her personal and well-known views, it had become clear that “she hadn’t wasted her breath” as many activists and Parliamentary candidates “were rallying to her cause”. Who these were, and how , was not spelled out.
Correspondent Sean Lay, out on the stump in Newark then reported:
Bearing a ‘Keep the Pound’ placard, a Conservative supporter in Newark shook William Hague’s hand warmly, thanking him for fighting to keep Britain out of Europe. The Tory leader moved on without comment. With the other parties saying he’s being deliberately ambiguous over the Single Currency, Labour’s list of candidates could be an embarrassment, but Mr Hague sees no conflict between his position and Lady Thatcher’s.
William Hague: I think we have no difficulty whatsoever in saying the Conservative Party is united. The choice at this election is between a Conservative Party which will keep the pound, and a Labour Party that will abolish the pound. As for comments about the Single Currency, I thought she was rather restrained compared to what she often says.
This was a clear denial that the issue was as important as was being portrayed by Labour, and this went some, but not all, of the way towards balancing the impression given earlier. He added that Mr Hague :
Is determined not to repeat the problem of the last election, when John Major tried to hold all his candidates to a neutral position on the Euro. His failure led to charges of weak leadership. So, providing candidates accept Mr Hague’s policy of ‘No for the lifetime of this Parliament ’ they have carte blanche to say what they like about the long- term.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 96 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
This phrasing implied strongly that party policy on the Euro was something of a fudge not supported by an unspecified number of candidates. He then presented evidence that suggested that the position could hold: first that Labour’s list of candidates who were against party policy (Mr Bown’s 80), was based mainly on their comments over the last four years, and that, despite their views, the official election addresses were likely to stick firmly to the Party line. Mr Lay added that other candidates, such as John Redwood, said that his personal determination not to abolish the pound was not in conflict with official policy for this election.
JOHN REDWOOD: Well, everybody knows my position on the Single Currency, I’ve made it crystal clear over the years, but for this election I’m fully behind William Hague, because I want to win this argument and I want a coalition of ‘never’ men and women and ‘not for the foreseeable future’ men and women – and we can think about the following parliament in good time.
Mr Lay concluded:
If a referendum on the Euro has already been held by the time of the next election, the argument could be academic. If not, the ambiguity will finally have to be resolved one way or the other. Mr Hague’s coalition of ‘nevers’ and ‘not for nows' should hold, at least for this campaign.
Thus, the thrust of Mr Lay’s report was to suggest that the Conservative position on Europe, though very fragile, was likely to hold, for the duration of the campaign. The main impression given was that it was a rather messy affair. It may have been. But here, as elsewhere, there was no real discussion of the scale of the problem. Mr Lay said that Mr Brown had overstated the position of the 80 candidates he mentioned, in that their addresses were likely to support the official party line, despite their long- term opposition to the Euro. But he gave no indication of whether the 80 figure itself was accurate, or whether the Tories themselves accepted that the figure was reasonable. This ambiguity, creating the impression of major splits, combined with the overall thrust of the earlier part of this sequence to cast Tory policy on Europe in unfavourable light. The use of language suggested that “blood had been drawn”. The impact, despite Mr Lay’s final section, and the later interview with Francis Maude, was that the Tories were in deep trouble over Europe. This was not, in itself, balanced coverage of the Tory stance on tax harmonisation. It gave too much uncritical weight to claims over their political opponents and, though containing countervailing information from key Conservatives, did not analyse with sufficient care the actual importance of the differing positions within the party on the Euro.
In the interview with Francis Maude, the opening sequence was:
Both Labour and the Conservatives have endured a tricky day over their respective policies on Europe. But at least they’ve managed to splutter their way to the half-time whistle. That much was acknowledged this afternoon, in a rare afternoon press conference, Labour turned the spotlight onto a split Tory party – the football analogy slogan on the television screen behind Messrs Brown, Byers and Hewitt: ‘Tory own-goal, just before half-time’. The Chancellor said that last night’s reappearance of Lady Thatcher and her ideological objection to the Euro had exposed the Tory Party as deeply divided and confused.
GORDON BROWN: The Conservative Party are incapable of running an economic policy, both in relation to Europe and for the country as a whole. If they cannot agree on their policy on Europe, it is impossible to imagine them negotiating properly in relation to Europe, if they cannot agree on what the foundations of their policies are. Indeed, if some of them are proposing a renegotiation, as was said a few weeks ago, of the Nice Treaty. The fact of the matter is that British public opinion will agree with us in my view, that these are matters that ought to be resolved in terms of the national economic interest – and that is the position that the Labour Party is totally united, but unfortunately, the Conservative Party cannot unite around it.
Ms English mentioned that the Labour party had endured its own problems, and then included a soundbite from Michael Portillo:
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 97 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Yesterday, Gordon Brown’s effective refusal to rule out a 50% rate of higher tax meant that one of Labour’s tax promises has already been broken before polling day. Today, the European Union’s insistence that Income Tax would be harmonised upwards, and that VAT could be extended to books and children’s clothes means that there is not a single promise in Labour’s manifesto that anyone could be confident that they would keep.
She added that Charles Kennedy had claimed that Lady Thatcher was a godsend:
When I watched Mrs Thatcher’s dramatic entry from the skies into the British General Election campaign last night, my initial thought was ‘Rejoice, rejoice’. This I think will be a great help.
Ms English then turned to Francis Maude. He denied that there were problems with the European policy:
That is, you know, that is our commitment; that is what our policy is. So the idea that there is somehow some great drama about this, or some huge sort of groundbreaking, earth-shattering news that Margaret Thatcher would never vote to scrap the pound, I find pretty laughable.
Ms English then asked:
Do you acknowledge you might have scored a bit of an own-goal – to extend that football metaphor – going on the attack to divert attention, perhaps, away from Lady Thatcher, when you went hard in on Labour with a tackle on the EU document? Your Shadow Chancellor, Michael Portillo said that tax harmonisation was on the cards: that really meant inevitably higher taxes for British citizens. Now that was firmly kicked into touch by the EU Commissioner Bolkestein today, who said quite the contrary, it could result in lower duties on alcohol, fuel and tobacco.
Mr Maude replied that he thought Frits Bolkestein was, in fact, pouring petrol on the row because he had accepted that harmonisation was on the agenda; that Labour supported the stance, primarily because it wanted to gain more revenues from areas such as petrol; and that the EC agenda would mean that the UK would lose its ability to set taxes.
This gave considerable airing to the Tory claims about their allegations about the true agenda of the European Commission and Labour, against questioning and a set-up which repeatedly suggested that the party was split and confused over its European policies. The interview went some way towards redressing the lack of balance in the earlier sequence, but did not redress matters entirely
On the 10pm news on May 23, Mark Mardell analysed the day’s action on Europe. He clearly outlined what the Conservative claims were, and reported both the EC denial and Labour’s claims about Tory splits and own goals. His own conclusion appeared to favour the ‘own goal’ analysis and he also pointed out that Europe, as a subject, was for the Tories, a double-edged sword.
It gives Labour the opening they need to claim that their opponents are both divided and dangerous.
This was a robust assessment of the Conservative’s stance on this issue, with a clear conclusion that on this occasion, the points raised by Mr Bolkestein and VAT amounted to an own goal. That was broadly what the Labour party press office had concluded and put out that day. The piece contained no direct denials of the alleged problems from the Tories - and in that sense was unbalanced.
An analysis by Peter Morgan of the comparative tax regimes within Europe was useful background material as far as it went. The conclusion, however, appeared to be an opinion directly at variance with the Tory claims about harmonisation.
The French simply wouldn’t accept UK alcohol duties, just as we’d object to the high level of social security payments in France. The right to set tax at home and not in Brussels is jealously guarded in every European capital.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 98 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
The 10pm news also considered a claim by Lord Tebbit that UKIP had been infiltrated by government agents. It was an item pushed on to the agenda by Lord Tebbit. It was followed by an assessment by Andrew Marr:
Well, I think it’s clear evidence of how desperately concerned a lot of Conservatives are about the electoral effect of the UKIP, and they really can’t understand why this party is targeting quite Euro-sceptic Conservative candidates in marginal seats. And it’s not just necessarily about this election, because what a lot of Tories are saying behind their hands is, ‘if we lose the election, there may be turmoil in our party, we’ll find the sceptical and the anti-EU movement in this country deeply divided, turmoil all around, and that will be the moment Tony Blair chooses to launch his campaign to get us into the Euro – exactly the wrong moment’. So for the people involved, very intense passions, a lot of heated exchanges on the ground in constituencies around the country and very, very big issues to play for.
Peter Sissons: Now Europe is one of the most divisive political issues of modern times, of course, now it’s up and running in this campaign, can you guess what effect it’s going to have over the next week or so?
AM: Well I think most people believe that the clearest effect will be to secure for the various parties, parts of their core vote – particularly to the Conservatives. There are a minority of people who think that Europe is the most important issue in the campaign, but they’re a very motivated minority – much more likely to come out and actually take part, participate in the election, than many other people. I think however, that Labour feels that the allegation that they’re starting to put around cautiously, that the Conservatives are sort of drifting towards a position where they might actually advocate withdrawal, is damaging. The Conservatives say that’s a terrible smear, ‘that’s not our position’, but I think what’s interesting is that Labour’s idea that they could get through a General Election campaign barely discussing Europe has already been blown out of the water.
The key point was the suggestion that Conservatives believed that the UKIP threat of dividing Tory votes was an important one, and could be indicative of wider turmoil within Tory ranks over the stance over Europe. Andrew Marr also suggested that Labour believed that the Conservatives were moving towards the withdrawal line and that this was somehow “damaging”. He balanced this by saying that Labour was being forced to confront the European issues, perhaps against their will, but there was no analysis or elaboration of this – and the impact of the item was again focus on Tory divisions and turmoil over Europe.
Newsnight carried its most important analysis to date of the European issue. At its heart was the opening observation from Jeremy Paxman that:
…the vast majority of the population is against the Euro, yet…the one big party committed to keeping the pound is on course for defeat.
He buttressed this with statements that the Chancellor was on the one hand talking about Europe “vital to our national prosperity” with the Tories representing it “ as likely to take away our right even to tax
Martha Kearney’s opening report opened by observing that Gordon Brown remained “enigmatic” on the vote about the Euro, She said he was disingenuous in saying he wanted to discuss it, as “it was harder to get Gordon Brown to espouse the virtues of the Euro than it is to restrain John Prescott”. Ms Kearney noted that when he discussed the Euro, he turned to the five tests, adding that “party insiders” had told her that Labour as a whole would prefer that “Europe wasn’t on the political agenda at all during this campaign”. This, she observed, wasn’t surprising as public opinion was “so
The thrust of this piece was to attempt to show that Labour wanted to limit debate on the Euro (sometimes confused with “Europe”) during the campaign, and that the Chancellor would only talk
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 99 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______about the five tests, despite enthusiasm in some industry quarters (implied to be the CBI, as Cliff Hardcastle was a member) for joining. She produced evidence that within the Labour Party, there were those (Ken Livingstone) who wanted more enthusiasm for joining during the campaign.
The overall impact was to suggest that, against clear opposition from the Conservatives to joining the Single Currency, there were divisions within Labour over the degree of commitment to display, with the Chancellor centre-stage in advocating caution. There was no effort to assess how important this was – for example in creating pressures on the Brown/Blair relationship.
The programme moved on to an interview with Robin Cook – continuing the programme’s spotlight on Labour’s approach to Europe. This was a robust exchange, in which Jeremy Paxman illustrated, by pushing hard on the questions about the political advantages of the joining the Euro, that Robin Cook was unwilling – or unable – to move from discussing the issue except in terms of the economics. The nearest Mr Cook came to addressing the question was “if you have a strong economy, you then do have political respect”, and then later “better clout”. The overall impact was to suggest that Mr Cook appeared uncomfortable with presenting the political issues, and disingenuous about his overall approach to the Single Currency, except on economic terms. Jeremy Paxman clearly judged that this was an important point in Labour’s overall approach to Europe, and he showed vividly that Mr Cook was not prepared to venture beyond very narrow confines in discussing the Euro. As a consequence of Mr Cook’s stone-walling the interview did not tackle many of the political issues which the Conservatives were claiming would be a consequence of joining the Euro, but time was at a premium. Jeremy Paxman also pushed Mr Cook on the rules adopted for financing the Euro referendum. His questioning exposed clearly the nature of doubts in some quarters that the formula was fair. Again, Mr Cook stuck to the party line, that it was fair – and the interview did not get beyond that immediate impasse. There was one very clear non sequitur deployed by Mr Cook, “if there are more people against it, there are going to be more organisations campaigning against” which Jeremy Paxman did not seek to challenge. This was perhaps an opportunity missed.
The interview also finally established that, if there was a ‘no’ vote in the referendum, it would probably at least one Parliament before the issue was revisited. The programme also included an interview with Menzies Campbell about the Liberal Democrat approach to the Euro, in which Jeremy Paxman explored whether he would support devaluation in order to join the Single Currency and why European issues had not been more prominently featured in the party’s manifesto. The exchange clearly elucidated the Liberal Democratic policy on joining the Euro. Jeremy Paxman did not explore the issue of whether there were any divisions or problems within the Lib Dems about adopting such as pro-Euro line (as had been hinted elsewhere as being of particular relevance in marginal areas such as the South-West), nor did he push hard on why so little of the manifesto dealt with the Euro – despite Mr Campbell’s rather odd response that the policies on the Euro were already well-known.
This was an important edition of Newsnight. The editorial emphasis was to investigate the Labour difficulties over Europe. Martha Kearney presented important evidence of possible divisions, and the interview with Mr Cook put him firmly on the spot, through his prevarication over discussing the political implications of joining the Euro.
May 24 The bulletins on Today included an item, with a voice report from Jonathan Beale, which said that the Tories were attacking the European Commission for its intervention in the campaign. This gave clear prominence to the Tory concerns, that the party believed that their worries about tax harmonisation remained – and that they had fears about a “federalists agenda”. It made no effort to explain whether or not their might be a case for the Commission to answer, leaving the listener to form his own conclusions. In the circumstances, this might have somewhat confusing, as there are few precedents. The result of the lack of analysis was that the piece sounded like reciprocal mud-slinging. The Tory claims were juxtaposed in both the intro and the voice report by the Conservatives being accused by Labour and the Liberal Democrats of avoiding the main election issues – health and education. The construction meant that the impression given was that the Conservatives were mired in a political dog- fight and Labour was getting on with the election proper.
In an interview after the 6.30pm news, Tim Franks was not asked about, and did not seek to elaborate upon, the main bulletin story. The Tory claims were therefore not judged to be worth further
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 100 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______exploration. This was a striking omission, given the prominence of the item in the bulletins. The implications of “interference” were potentially quite significant constitutionally – was this the commission genuinely involving itself in UK affairs simply to clarify, or a worrying precedent?
Mr Franks’ subsequent analysis of Tory policy and aspirations, by contrast, gave a useful insight to the thinking behind their efforts, albeit with a light sting in the tail. He argued that party strategist genuinely believed that Europe was one of their key strengths, and that they therefore wanted to keep the topic at the head of the election agenda “ad nauseam”, if necessary. He went on to report (and this a first during the campaign) that, despite the keenness on Europe, there were already “rumblings of discontent” within Tory ranks about the failure to switch opinion polls, clearly implying that there was an element of desperation in their Europe efforts. He described William Hague as a man of “Zen-like calm” – an interpretation that could be seen as both damning with faint praise, and suggesting that he was fighting against the odds. The difficulty for the listener is in deciding whether judgements like this are opinions or an accurate description.
The key interview of the morning, in relation to the Tory claims, was that of Geoffrey Martin, the EU representative in London, who was asked to answer the allegations about Frits Bolkestein’s intervention. John Humphrys pushed him hard on that the approach had been irregular. The interview established clearly that the commission felt that what Mr Bolkestein was fully justified and accorded with the position as they saw it, on the grounds that he was merely stating the “truth”. John Humphrys also explored whether the EU might be perceived to be biased in its analysis of what had been said. Again there was an indirect denial. There was a fundamental problem with this set up. Although John Humphrys played devil’s advocate, and suggested that the EU might have its own definition of “counting” and of the moves towards further integration, it was difficult for the listener to assess what importance to attach to Mr Martin’s responses quite simply because he was an EU spokesman. Was his denial really the unbiased truth or an objective assessment? It sounded in parts – especially in his new definition of the EU’s development of sharing sovereignty – that he was trying to put a gloss on far more complex arguments about integration, which many within the Labour party would disagree with, let alone the Tories:
GM: ….in the year 2004 or thereabouts, there’ll be a big decision about the nature of the future of Europe, the expanded Europe. And you heard my colleague Ricky Levi earlier on talking about the pooling of sovereignty. May I replace that word by another one?
JH: Go on.
GM: The sharing of sovereignty. It is not a matter of giving your sovereignty away to somebody else, it’s a matter of sharing that sovereignty for the overall greater good.
Given the circumstances, and the danger of Mr Martin only putting one side of the argument, it would surely have been safer and fairer – and editorially sounder - to have gone instead, or in addition, for a substantive interview on this topic to an independent observer – someone working in Europe as a journalist or political analyst. It would have been useful also to have some opinion from a non-involved observer on how unusual (or not) Frits Bolkestein’s intervention was. As it was, the drift of this piece was to say that there wasn’t a problem. John Humphrys challenged some elements of that, but within the format chosen, it was hard for listeners to gauge just how much importance could genuinely be attached to what Mr Martin he said. The impact amounted to that that the Tories – whether they liked it or not – were wrong in all their allegations about tax. Maybe they were, but here, the commission had a disproportionate say.
In the newspaper review, the main item was:
Not surprisingly, in an election campaign, the choice of stories making the front-pages reflect the different political leanings of the papers concerned. So it is that the Mirror speaks of what it calls ‘the squabbling Tories going into meltdown over the Euro’. The paper claims the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Francis Maude has ditched the party’s official policy on the Single Currency, by expressing the belief that it will never be right for Britain to join. The Guardian highlights the European Commission’s rejection of Conservative claims of a covert plan to harmonise taxes across the EU. According to the
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 101 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
paper, the denial meant that William Hague’s attempt to put Euro-scepticism at the centre of his Party’s election fight back misfired spectacularly.
The choice of the anti-Conservative press to illustrate the treatment over the story about Europe underlined the lack analysis elsewhere in the programme. This sequences clearly implied that the Tories had got it wrong – there was very little elsewhere in the programme to balance this, apart from Charles Moore’s later brief remarks on the election panel.
On PM, continuing the emphasis on Tory problems, the correspondent Norman Smith examined the question of why Tory Europhiles were allegedly keeping quiet during the campaign. In the overall categories of journalistic pursuit, hunting out – as was the case here – non-dissenting dissenters is quite unusual. Clare English pointed in the intro to their “deafening silence”. Mr Smith then reported that he had contacted 12 candidates in this category, and not one of them had wished to speak to him. This clearly illustrated that – whatever their private views – the pro-Euro faction within the party was saying nothing for the time being. This ‘fact’ was presented in a sequence suggesting that the Tory Party’s overall position on Europe was very delicately poised. Clearly that was the case – but there was no corresponding discussion of the party’s maintenance of an apparently unified line, and of the decision by the hitherto vociferous (and surely not easily led) Mr Clarke to keep out of the limelight. Norman Smith did not raise the possibility that his silence could actually be seen as unity rather than discord, and nor did he provide a vitally important fact in his overall analysis – the size of the Europhile contingent within the party. He mentioned the 12, but not, crucially, the more important information of whether that was a majority, or a minority of the actual numbers. At the same time, though there was reference to Labour problems during the programme, there was no mention at all of the shades of opinion within the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, it being left entirely to leading party figures to enunciate the party line. He brought in a further point – a quote by John Stevens, of the Pro-Euro Conservative party:
When I was appointed, I was under the impression that we had an agreement that if William Hague came out and said ‘never’ to the Euro, the pro-Europeans would strike out immediately.
NS: When you say you had an agreement, what was the nature of that agreement?
JS: Well, that we wouldn’t run, in return for – if the campaign went in such a way that people would be saying ‘never’ to the Euro – Ken Clarke and others would strike back.
This therefore – the ramped-up case of the missing Conservatives - continued the analysis and impression that Europe was a problem for the Tories, and only for the Tories – with Mr Smith’s pay- out line reinforcing the suggestion of difficulties with final line that, after the election, the divisions over Europe would leap to the fore.
On the 10pm news, Andrew Marr was asked whether the Tories had any theories why they could not make a breakthrough in the polls. He answered:
Well, they certainly do. Certainly a lot of dissident Tories do, they think it’s because William Hague isn’t saying enough about those issues. Now, as it happens, by coincidence, he’s going on education in a big way tomorrow. But when you listen to William Hague, what does he sound really impassioned, really committed about? He sounds committed about those old great Thatcher themes – about lower taxes, Euro- scepticism, crime – and he’s been banging on about them, and impossible almost to imagine any leader doing those songs with more wit, bravura, courage, intelligence, commitment, and yet if you believe the polls, and of course he doesn’t, people aren’t listening. And a large part of the traditional Conservative Party, all those pro-European grandees, big names, are simply sitting in the back garden, with their gin slings and their arms folded, watching.
This, on the face of it, seemed to say that William Hague was playing to Tory strengths. But there was a sting in the tail that was enigmatic – that “a large part of the traditional Conservative party grandees,
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 102 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______big names…are simply sitting in their back gardens”, plus the reference at the beginning to the (unspecified and unnamed) “lot of dissident Tories”. This clearly suggested that a “large part of the traditional party” was doing nothing to support Mr Hague. It suggested that that “large part” was pro- Europe, conveying the clear suggestion that a majority were against Mr Hague and his European focus. Here, as elsewhere in similar analysis, Mr Marr gave no clue to the numbers involved – the impression was that the party was dominated by a dissident and cynical rabble.
May 25 The bulletins were led by a story from the Financial Times – that the prime minister had given an interview which amounted to that he was going on the offensive over Europe, saying he was confident he could win a ‘yes’ vote on the Single Currency, and arguing that taking a strong role in the leadership of Europe was the best way of expressing patriotism. The item noted that the Tories had claimed in response was that it was the keep the pound campaign which had forced Europe on to the agenda. In a voice report, Sean Lay amplified some of the points, saying that Mr Blair had argued that the ‘yes’ vote could be won “provided you argued well and show it’s in Britain’s interest”, and would argue that “Conservative isolationism could cost jobs”. He added that Charles Kennedy would blame the exchange rate with other European countries for job losses in manufacturing and tourism.
Mr Lay’s reportage focused firmly on Labour’s own formulation of the European issue, its attack on Tory isolationism – and mentioned in balancing material only that the Tories claimed they had kept Europe on the agenda. The impression was that the prime minister was “taking control”. This treatment was in marked contrast to the Tory claims about tax harmonisation, where from the outset the emphasis was on denials, both from the Labour party and the commission.
Tim Franks analysed the prime minister’s interview, repeating the points that Mr Blair believed that he could change opinion on the Euro, and also that it was only Labour which was offering choice on the matter through the referendum. He went further than Mr Lay in saying that Mr Blair would also claim that the Tories real agenda was withdrawal, and that their stance would damage business. Mr Franks added:
There is a political desire at the very top of Labour to go into the Euro if at all possible, nonetheless I think there’s also a pragmatic realisation that that opinion has yet to be shifted and until it is, I don’t think that there’s going to be any sense, as I say, from the Labour leadership that they will be rushing into a referendum trying to bounce people into it – they just realise that the political risks are just far too great.
Mr Franks gave a lot of space to explaining Mr Blair’s speech, with the important observation that he believed that the Labour leadership would not be rushing into a referendum as they realised that the risks were far too great. This interpretation, too, was in sharp contrast to what Conservative spokesmen were alleging – that Labour wanted to bounce the electorate into the single currency. He gave no supporting evidence for this, and did not explain why he felt that line – rather than the Conservative one – was more applicable. It looked as though he was dismissing, or ignoring, Tory claims.
The newspaper review covered reports on the prime minister’s switch to European issues. The lines chosen included that Mr Blair believed he could win the arguments on Europe, that he had a huge lead in the opinion polls, and that the Sun was advising William Hague to go if he lost. From the other side, it noted that the Telegraph had said Mr Blair’s commitment to Europe was quasi-religious and the Daily Mail that his definition of patriotism was “rum”. The review did not mention the lead story in the Times that Mr Blair was facing problems within his own ranks about the timing of the referendum – and it signed off with the Daily Express being mote interested in the pro-European Conservatives, who had been silent during the campaign.
Today’s constituency report was from Teignbridge. This covered a lot of ground, explaining deftly that Europe and the Euro was a central issue, and that the seat was being contested by UKIP. It included interviews with the three main candidates, as well as with a local fisherman who was affected by the EU fisheries policy. The analysis and commentary assumed throughout that the only party which UKIP would draw votes from was the Conservatives, and not that the pro-Euro Liberal Democrat vote might also be affected. The Liberal Democrat candidate was not even questioned on this point. By contrast, the assumption was that the Conservative vote could be split by UKIP, and Patrick Nicholl,
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 103 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______the Conservative candidate, was pushed hard on whether changes in the main Tory policy on the Euro would help him.
The impression given was that only the Tories faced problems. Clearly, with Lord Tebbit’s observations about MI5 UKIP infiltration, there were worries in Tory ranks about this issue, and they could not be ignored. But that could have been tempered to some extent, perhaps with UKIPs claims that it could take votes from all parties, or by questions to the Liberal Democrat candidate about whether he could be hit by UKIP.
Also on the topic of Tory problems, Sarah Nelson was asked later in the programme about speculation that UKIP was about to announce a major defection from the Tory party. She said the claims had to be taken with a pinch of salt, then speculated that it was Theresa Gorman, pointing out that a number of Tories (she mentioned two) had already defected, before adding, in apparent contradiction to her own analysis, that “she had no reason to believe that UKIP was hyping its claims”. Her prediction turned out to be inaccurate (it was Paul Sykes announcing his backing of UKIP). Yet again, in a special item on Today, the Tories were cast as being divided and in danger of becoming more so – even though on this occasion, this was plain wrong.
PM led with Tony Blair’s speech and included a lengthy extract from it, with a counter-argument from Michael Portillo in which he claimed that the prime minister had never given any reasons for joining the Euro. It was followed by a report on attitudes to the Euro from yet another constituency where the Conservatives had problems – this time, Harwich, which had been won by Labour in 1997 because the Referendum Party had polled 5,500 votes, thereby splitting the Conservative vote.
Clare English interviewed Robin Cook about the Blair speech, observing that there was little in it about the Euro, and first asking him whether it would galvanise the Euro-sceptics. Robin Cook denied the lack of detail and said Labour were delivering by engagement. Ms English returned to the lack of detail on the Euro. He said it was “breathtaking” that the Tories wanted the silent majority to speak, as they were denying the opportunity for a referendum. Ms English pushed on the timetable. Mr Cook repeated the party line about the five economic tests. Clare English responded that he had political problems as well as economic ones – and also over the exchange rate. Mr Cook responded that Labour would not rule out joining for political prejudice. Ms English returned to the sterling issue, contending that the rate of exchange was far too high for the UK to join. Mr Cook said he refused to discuss the exchange rate, before returning to that the referendum would be held after the five economic tests had been met. He then alleged that if the Conservatives came to government the door would be slammed on membership, and investment would dry up. Ms English returned to asking what he could do to bring down sterling. Mr Cook stuck to his line that such speculation would be irresponsible.
This was an important exchange – one of the few in which Labour spokesmen were pushed on the Europe policy. Clare English’s main aim was to try get Mr Cook to admit that devaluation would be required to join the Euro. This was an important point, but in the event, he refused point blank to answer. The terms of his refusal seemed plausible.
Ms English had chosen this area for the confrontation, and it was reasonably effective in showing what was intended – that Labour would not go beyond certain very narrow confines in their discussion of the specifics of European policies. There were many more questions Ms English could have asked – for example, whether Mr Cook disagreed with his cabinet colleagues over the speed of joining.
The Tony Blair speech was also the lead on the 10pm news – and the bulletin added a new line, that William Hague had said the election was also, in effect, the referendum on the Euro.
The sequence on the speech and counter-claims was interleaved with an important piece of analysis by Peter Morgan, the longest throughout the campaign, on Britain ‘s relationship with Europe. This is what he said:
Britain’s future relationship with Europe and its fledgling Single Currency poses the most important economic questions to face us for a generation. There’s no doubt that the UK is a big economy, but is it big enough to go it alone outside the Euro, or even outside the European Union? Within the EU, just Germany produces more than the UK. But our economy is only fractionally larger than France or Italy. And if you look
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 104 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
at how much wealth we produce per person, Luxembourg is by far the richest European nation. We come in a poor eleventh. Europe is a big export market as the Prime Minister has said; but his opponents point out how important the rest of the world remains to our exporters, almost thirty years after joining the EU. Looking at the export of physical goods, like cars, TVs and whisky, the EU accounts for 59% of our overseas sales. But including services like banking and tourism, European Union countries buy only half of what we sell abroad. Companies like Nissan come to make cars for the whole EU. Many people worry that staying outside the Euro could jeopardise future investment like this; concerns that would intensify if Britain even hinted at leaving the European Union, A recent study shows that Britain still attracts most inward investment projects in Europe; the UK won 26%, compared to 15% in France and 7% in Germany. But if you look just at manufacturing, in which we’ve traditionally done so well, Britain is now lagging behind France – although still well ahead of Germany. Statistics can be twisted and deployed by both sides in this debate. But this is no longer a discussion just about economics. It’s now developed into an argument about patriotism, and what it means to be British.
This covered some of the key statistics relating to trade with Europe and brought into focus that although 59% of trade in physical goods was with Europe, the total of what the EU bought was less than 50%.. Mr Morgan said that “many worried” that staying outside the Euro might jeopardise further inward investment; but decided not to mention the counter argument sometimes made by Euro-sceptics that joining the Euro would stem the flow of foreign investment. He then added– without qualification – that mention of leaving the EU would “intensify concerns” about the inward flow of foreign funds. He himself said statistics could be twisted. Yet his own analysis and marshalling of the facts preferred to mention that investment would be jeopardised by lesser involvement in Europe.
Andrew Marr turned as his main point of the evening to the analysis of why Mr Hague had said the election was a referendum on Europe. This is what he said:
This strikes me as being an enormous gamble. William Hague is piling all his chips, or most at any rate, onto the European argument. Now, we understand why he’s doing it, he doesn’t want votes to start to splinter off to the UK Independence Party – with Paul Sykes’s money now – and he knows that there are a lot of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters who also want to keep the pound. Now if he could start to bring them into the Conservative fold now, he could still turn this around. But if he fails to do that, and if he goes down to a severe defeat, then he leaves the Conservatives after the election in the most appalling position. They’ve said it was a referendum on the Euro, they’ve lost that referendum, it makes it very, very hard afterwards. To put this politely, it feels very much like ‘win or bust’
This was said without qualification: that Mr Hague (pointedly, not the Conservatives) was taking an enormous gamble. Subsequent events may have proved that the analysis was right and this was a pivotal point in the election.. But again, the focus in the coverage was relentlessly on the Conservatives problems over Europe. There was no countervailing analysis of what the Tony Blair speech meant to Labour, whether there were any potential problems with the policy, whether there was any prevaricating. Labour was focusing less on Europe, but the reasons were not even explored.
Newsnight, in its intro, posed the possibility that both Mr Hague, and Mr Blair - by focusing on Europe were already looking beyond the election – and thereby conceding that the “result as predictable”. Jacky Long pointed out that Mr Blair had not focused much in his speech on the Euro, before dwelling on what he had said about the Tories approach to Europe, and his assertion that it would be a “disaster for Britain”. Ms Long brought in Paul Whiteley, an academic, to say that Mr Blair was trying to associate patriotism with both membership of the EU and the Euro, thereby blunting Tory criticisms of Europe. She added:
As well as carefully tying the Single Currency to a vision of a powerful and patriotic Britain in Europe, Mr Blair’s speech was clearly intended to force the Tories onto the defensive. What will be the consequences of their proud boast that they would renegotiate key treaties – an inevitable and humiliating exit from the EU, at least according to the Prime Minister. It would seem that he’s now stolen the Tories’ best
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 105 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
line, with a few slight modifications; it’s not so much a case of ‘thirteen days to save the pound’ as ‘thirteen days to save Britain’s place in Europe . She included Mr Hague’s claim that the election was a referendum, and actuality from Michael Portillo saying the at Mr Blair was trying to bamboozle the electorate into Europe before adding:
Tory Party strategists made renegotiating the European treaties a manifesto pledge. The manifesto clearly states: ‘We will not ratify the Nice Treaty, we will renegotiate, so that Britain does not lose its veto.’ But if other EU states reject renegotiation, what then? That’s a point Mr Hague has yet to address, preferring to concentrate on the issue he still hopes will prove a winner.
Jeremy Paxman then turned to Andrew Marr, who repeated broadly what he had said on the 10pm news. Mr Paxman then asked:
Can you help us on one other point? The Prime Minister made the point very strongly that selective renegotiation of British membership of the European Union, which is what he says the Conservatives want, is simply not on the cards. Is that true?
AM: Probably is very, very difficult to do it. William Hague, Prime Minister arrives at the table and says, ‘right, I want to renegotiate this treaty and that treaty’ – whoever’s chairing the European Council says, ‘that’s very interesting, thank you very much indeed, Prime Minister, any seconders for that motion?’ There is then a silence – and what does William Hague do then? That is the fundamental question that he hasn’t yet answered. On the other hand, the Tory idea, which is a looser Europe does go with the grain of quite a lot of people inside Europe. Longer term, some of Francis Maude’s ideas, what he calls a multi-system Europe, you know, are not implausible, it all depends on, really, what the other countries are also wanting to do.
This sequence again focused mostly on Tory problems with their policy, and was fundamentally at odds with what Mr Hague clearly believed. On the other side of the coin, there was no real exploration (other than a brief mention at the beginning that Europe had been an issue that Labour had been trying to avoid) that there might be divisions within Labour over Tony Blair’s raising of Europe in these terms. There was no real exploration, either, of the relatively glancing mention in Mr Blair’s speech of the Euro, something that might have been expected as part of Newsnight’s more trenchant style.
The statements about renegotiation – that the Conservatives had not tackled the issue of what happened if fellow members said no – were not strictly accurate. William Hague had been tackled on Today on precisely that theme 20 months previously, and had maintained that in the past, the party had succeeded in renegotiations of treaty terms, notably at Maastricht over the Single Currency. It may be that he hadn’t tackled the topic during this election campaign (in interviews covered by this survey, the topic had not even been mentioned editorially up until now) , but that was not the impression given – it sounded as though the policy was not thought through, when clearly it had been.
This what was said by Mr Hague in 1999:
Oh, it involves treaty changes, but treaty changes happen on a regular basis – they happened at Maastricht, they happened at Amsterdam, a new European treaty’s coming up for renegotiation in the next couple of years. So we have to put forward our ideas and our views for that, and this is the right way for Europe to go: being more flexible, respecting the rights of nation states, making sure that at the end of the day we are and independent country.
It is arguable that Andrew Marr should have mentioned something of this in his final response, and that the omission made the piece unbalanced: in effect, the Labour party had a clear policy that had been thought through while the Conservative one, though playing to their strengths over the opposition to the Euro, had been developed without full regard of the circumstances. Whether or not attempts at renegotiation would work is a different matter. .
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 106 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
May 26 On Saturday’s Today, Europe as an election topic remained in the bulletins with the Conservative claim that that only they would keep the pound, and that they were distributing thousands of ‘keep the pound’ items. It said that Mr Hague had “seized on” remarks made by Tony Blair, declaring that the pound would be sunk if Labour were re-elected. A voice piece from Nicholas Jones mentioned that William Hague had unveiled a digital clock highlighting the hours and minutes which the Tories said were left to save the pound, while Labour believed that the Conservatives were only highlighting their own splits on Europe and wanted to return to the topic of the health service.
The newspaper reviews mentioned reports which highlighted Mr Hague’s “gamble” to save the pound – “ a dramatic hardening” of the campaign, according to a quote chosen from the Times. The later version of the review mentioned at length the Guardian’s view that Mr Blair’s speech had, by coming out into the open on Europe, embarked on a campaign that would make or break him. It also said that the Daily Express applauded Mr Blair for putting the Euro centre stage.
An interview with government minister Michael Wilson was prefaced by a quote from Bob Worcester of MORI, claiming that Mr Blair’s attempt to link patriotism with European integration and membership of the Euro could backfire, as 22% thought Mr Hague was the best patriot and 16% Mr Blair.
Mr Naughtie first put it to Mr Wilson that – as had been claimed – Mr Blair’s gambit could fail. He responded that Mr Blair and the party held a “confident” and outward view of patriotism , in comparison with the negative and frightened view of Mr Hague. Mr Naughtie responded that the opposite view was that patriotism that membership of the Euro would cede some control of national identity, and asked whether “Labour had to tackle that fear”. Mr Wilson’s response was that patriotism was firstly the promotion of national identity, but secondly, that for 50 years “the UK has pooled some of its national sovereignty in certain crucial areas”. Mr Naughtie, did not challenge that, but sought to elucidate what he meant by asking whether he meant with NATO. Mr Wilson agreed this was a good example “of protecting and enhancing national identity”. Mr Naughtie countered that those who opposed membership of the Euro thought that control of taxation would be lost and that was “too much”. Mr Wilson replied that the referendum would only take place if the five economic tests had been met.
This was a rare exchange with a government spokesman about Europe. Mr Naughtie challenged him to the point where he said that there were fears that joining the Euro would lose control of taxation and cede elements of sovereignty. Mr Wilson’s replies were exactly along the party line – especially on the Euro, where he reached for the five economic tests as soon as he could – and Mr Naughtie did not seek to probe or challenge beyond that point. There was no effort to explore whether there were any doubts within Labour about this; to ask whether Austin Mitchell or Frank Field agreed with the policies, or, in any wider sense, to check whether the Labour view of patriotism did – or did not – strike a chord with voters.
The next interview on Europe was with Paddy Ashdown. He believed that Mr Blair had been “very courageous” to come out and do battle over Europe, that Mr Blair was “risking his popularity – and rather paradoxically (if Mr Blair was risking his popularity in talking about it) that William Hague was only talking about Europe because he had nothing else to say. Edward Stourton put to it to him that Mr Hague’s stance “appealed to a large majority”. Mr Ashdown disagreed, arguing that people were only against the Euro because they had not yet heard the arguments. Mr Stourton disputed this – pointing to frequent debates – but Mr Ashdown disagreed, saying the government had not taken a lead. Mr Ashdown said that the only party who would not mount a referendum on Europe was the Tories. Mr Stourton countered that the Euro had been debated, and that, if anything, the polls were showing a hardening of attitude against. Mr Ashdown again disagreed.
Mr Stourton shifted territory slightly to assert that the Liberal Democrats were taking a risk in their pro-Euro policy because many of their marginal seats were in Euro-sceptic areas. He denied this, saying that the NFU wanted to join the Euro, then asserted again that the election in any case was going to be won or lost on other issues.
Mr Stourton tried gamely here to pin down Mr Ashdown; his responses showed that he would stick to his guns, despite any amount of probing. This, for once, was an interview which pressed a Europhile
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 107 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______speaker into explaining his stance, and put to him firmly that there was evidence at variance with the Liberal Democrat line and stance.
A third interview on Europe involved Lord Parekh – a Labour peer who totally supported the Tony Blair speech – and Lawrence Robertson, a Conservative candidate, who was introduced only as “someone who was embroiled in the John Townend racism row a little earlier on”. He was asked first by James Naughtie what he thought of the Tony Blair speech. Mr Robertson responded that he did not want to go deeper into Europe, though it was “not unpatriotic to cooperate with our European neighbours”. Mr Naughtie returned to the NATO theme saying that this was an example of where the right to make independent decisions had been given up. Mr Robertson said that this was different because it did not give up “the ability to govern ourselves”. Of Mr Parekh, Mr Naughtie asked whether Mr Blair’s vision of Europe “was one he could fly with”. His response was that the prime minister was “absolutely right”. He also argued sovereignty wasn’t a “zero-sum” - a cluster of powers some of which you gave up in order to win others. Mr Robertson responded that he simply wanted to preserve the right to self-government. Finally, Mr Naughtie put it to Mr Robertson “in order to take things forward” whether he would accept a verdict of a referendum which gave a yes vote to the Euro. Mr Robertson said he would, but that left the option open to campaign on the retention of other powers. Mr Naughtie asked if this meant “going the whole way” and campaigning to come out of Europe. He replied that he would do anything to preserve sovereignty.
The set-up here seemed to imply, by mentioning that Mr Robertson was “embroiled in the John Townsend racism row” (of all the facts that could have been presented about him), that he was extremist in his views, in contrast to Lord Parekh, who was introduced only as an academic. Mr Naughtie explored his views on sovereignty very thoroughly, revealing that, if he eventually judged it necessary, Mr Robertson would campaign to come out of Europe entirely. There was no parallel pushing of Mr Parekh’s views – for example how far down the line Mr Parekh would go on his view that sovereignty was always a pooling of powers. Mr Naughtie did not ask whether he, too, wanted to go the whole way at the other side of the political spectrum – perhaps to a completely integrated Europe. Again, the emphasis was on the exploration of the Tory position and to show that the logical outcome – in some quarters - was perhaps to leave the EU. On the plus side, Mr Robertson was given ample space to explain his views.
In the final section of Today, Liberal Democrat candidate Matthew Taylor responded to a number of listener questions, the first of which was to what extend his party’s fervour on Europe extended to tax harmonisation. He denied that it did, and pointed out that his party had also been the first to call for a Euro referendum. He was also asked whether vote for UKIP would be wasted. He said it would, because of the first past the post system, and conceded that the withdrawal camp was not represented in Parliament .
On PM, the bulletins continued to say that the Conservatives were campaigning on claims that the election was the last chance to vote to keep the pound. The programme contended that all three parties had made gaffes that day – William Hague because he had said people would most likely vote for the Euro when the time came, Charles Kennedy because a speech he made could not be heard, and Labour because they had held a failed press conference with a bizarre Trojan Horse.
Sean Lay pointed out, in his analysis of the day, that Michael Portillo appeared at odds with Mr Hague’s claim that Labour could win a Euro referendum and concluded:
Unlike his Leader, Mr Portillo seemed more confident that in a referendum on the Euro, a majority would vote “no”. The danger for William Hague is that if the Conservatives are defeated in the general election, they will have already conceded a referendum against the Euro is lost. Those are words that the other parties would throw back at the Tories again and again.”
This was a strong judgement to the effect that Mr Hague’s words would come back and haunt him – in effect saying that there was an element of desperation about his claims.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 108 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
May 28 Today’s bulletins were dominated by Europe: claims by the Tories that joining the Euro would cost £36bn; a speech by Lionel Jospin on the future of Europe, about which his aides were said to have denied claims that Tony Blair had asked for it to be watered down; and an EU meeting about asylum policy.
The main editorial thrust was to examine the importance and nature of the Jospin speech. By contrast, the only exploration of the £36bn story, apart from the mention in the bulletins, was through an interview of Tim Franks . He said the Tories “very anxious to stress” the story and added that the figure involved had been “partly supported” by a trade and industry select committee, adding that “the government hadn’t really entered into the debate”. He didn’t elaborate on this further, saying only that the Tories were also anxious to say that the referendum on the Euro was likely to be rigged. Mr Franks added that the Conservatives were “ as keen a mustard” to keep Europe going, then observing that Labour’s response was to say that they were a “single issue sect”.
This amounted to only a cursory examination of the Tory claims about the £36bn, with no effort to explore whether or not they were properly founded.
The editorial treatment of the Jospin speech was through interviews with Iain Duncan Smith for the Tories (prefaced with very short interviews with two European commentators), then with Simon Murphy (leader of the Labour MEPs) for Labour, and Menzies Campbell for the Liberal Democrats.
These were preceded by an interview with BBC correspondent James Coomerasamy. The main points of his analysis were that the speech was that Mr Jospin was not a federalist, and that it was aimed at a French audience as part of the build-up to the French elections. He echoed the bulletins:
The French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin will set out his personal vision of the future of the European Union in a speech in Paris this morning. It’s thought he’ll demand greater protection for workers in the face of increasing globalisation. His aides say his speech will be audacious, but realistic. They have denied reports that Tony Blair asked Mr Jospin to water down its contents.
James Naughtie asked Mr Coomersamy if he would favour the European defence force, “something the US was very nervous about”. He responded that he would, but the main focus would concentrate on the social aspects.
The impact of the analysis was mainly that the speech was likely to have little importance outside France as it was aimed at the domestic audience. It did not mention the wider points about the development of the EU which emerged in later reports.
This was James Naughtie’s introduction to the interview with Iain Duncan Smith:
A great debate has begun on the future shape of the EU. There’s due to be an intergovernmental conference in 2004, which will settle the blueprint for the future – a sort of new constitution for the EU. So everyone is laying out their own ideas. The German Chancellor, Mr Schroeder has already suggested a model for Europe which is based, perhaps you won’t be surprised, broadly on the German political system. Now today, the French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, who’s expected to be fighting for the Presidency against Mr Chirac next year, is going to lay out his own view of where the future of the EU should lie. Our foreign affairs correspondent, Mike Williams is in Paris today, and to find out a little more, he started by speaking to Thomas Klau, who’s the EU correspondent of the German Financial Times.
Mr Klau said that Mr Jospin, who was conservative, would press partly for the retention of the status quo, but also in favour of a strong social model for Europe “that stands as a rock against the tide of globalisation, a Europe that is not shaped purely by market forces…but a Europe that defines its own and fights for its own social agenda”. He added that Mr Jospin would probably speak out against Germany’s call for reducing the roles of national governments in Brussels to those of members of a senate, or a mere upper chamber.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 109 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Mike Williams then turned to Philippe Chardannay, editor of Marianne, asking him why the Jospin speech was important. He said it was because it would be an answer to the German call for a more federal Europe, adding that Mr Jospin would reveal whether he had a sharp difference with Berlin in terms of being in favour of a Europe of nation states, rather than a federal Europe. Mr Williams asked M Chardannay where he thought Mr Jospin’s preference lay. He responded that no-one really knew, as Mr Jospin had never been either a Euro-enthusiast or a Euro-sceptic, though he did believe that “if France wants to play a strong role in the world, it can only do so through a strong Europe”. He added that it was also likely that Mr Jospin was “closer to Tony Blair than chancellor Schroeder” over the issue of agricultural subsidies, as he did not want them returned to member states.
Mike Williams asked if the speech would contain “any ammunition for Euro-sceptics”. He responded:
Perhaps, indeed, the Euro-sceptics in Britain will be able to find nuggets of federalist thinking which will serve them well in the electoral campaign. And I think that perhaps we are getting close to a crossroads, where a decision will have to be made in terms of how federal a Europe do we want. However, I do not think that the electoral campaign in Britain has very much of an influence upon this process between, basically, the Continental European members, on which shape of Europe do we want.
James Naughtie then asked Iain Duncan Smith if it would the speech would be “useful to people of your view” in that it would lay down “a too federalist” view of Europe.
Mr Duncan Smith, claiming that he wanted a truthful debate, said that Mr Jospin and Mr Schroeder had both said they wanted tax harmonisation and the full social model of economics in Europe, which would be a pan-European affair, adding that they had never been unclear that they wanted to “create a state by any other name”. James Naughtie put it to him that the notion that France would argue for the type of Europe that would allow its national identity to be subsumed was “absurd”.
Iain Duncan Smith responded:
Well, we play with this game about whether France will ever allow itself to be subsumed into some other identity; I think that’s the wrong debate. Francis Maude has made this absolutely clear: the debate is now really whether you see the European Union as a ‘one size fits all’ with everything deeply integrated and organised and run through a sort of Brussels centre, or whether you actually see, as we’ve put forward, a sort of flexible future with countries allowed to adopt certain elements, but not always everything, and giving some flexibility as to how they operate.
James Naughtie then brought in Gerard Foukes, a French socialist MP, asking him whether Mr Jospin would be arguing for a “one size fits all” Europe.
Mr Foukes responded that enlargement had not been discussed in the dialogue so far, and this meant that institutions had to be changed, otherwise the capacity of the EU institutions “will go to zero”. James Naughtie asked him if Mr Jospin wanted tax harmonisation, as Mr Duncan Smith claimed.
He responded:
Well, tax or fiscal uniformisation is not really, I believe, his objective; but we wish that there exists within the European Union some minimal fiscal rules, as exist today a minimum rate for VAT, we consider that there should also exist a minimum rate for taxation of capital income, for instance, and in the domains where there is competition between nation states, this competition might bring fiscal (word unclear) to zero, and then we consider that some harmonisation, just to be having ceilings, of having minimal levels .
James Naughtie then asked Mr Duncan-Smith whether, “in defence of a Single Market in Europe – which has always been an objective of your party in the past”, is it was necessary to have such ceilings. Mr Duncan Smith said he thought not, which was where Mr Blair was getting it wrong and going down the same road as Mr Jospin and Mr Schroeder.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 110 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
James Naughtie then asked what the Tory policy was, as they were expecting to be in government soon. Mr Ducan Smith responded that there was no need for any extra qualified majority voting, and that the party had made clear that it believed the one size fits all model would lead to a lack of competitiveness worldwide.
James Naughtie then switched away from the Jospin theme, and asked Mr Duncan Smith if the election was a referendum on the Euro. He replied:
Well, William Hague is absolutely right when he says, look – there is no other choice, you have one choice in front of you now, you know that Mr Blair wants to join the Euro, he won’t tell us what the cost is, you know it’s about £55 million per constituency.
JN: So this is a vote on European policy. What if you lose?
IDS: Well, we’re not going to lose, because I have to tell you, the clear and critical point is that the public are going to have to make their minds up as to whether they want a party under Mr Blair, who wants to go deeper and deeper into the Euro and other European integration without any flexibility; or a party that says there’s a better way, in the EU, but with flexibility and with the ability to make decisions on a whole range of . . .
JN: (speaking over) So the result next week is a judgement on Europe?
IDS: Well, the result next week is a result on who the public wants to be in power. And we say that the party in power, if it’s Labour, if it’s Mr Blair, you will go into the Euro, they will bamboozle you, they will change the question on the Euro, and they won’t tell you how much it costs, until you find that it costs you nearly £2000 per person.
This was an important sequence that touched upon some of the key issues of the Conservative policy and attitudes towards Europe, not just on the Euro but on integration. It also attempted to put an accurate perspective on the Jospin speech. It shed some light on what Mr Jospin was likely to say and the claims about the perceived contrast between his and Mr Schroeder’s vision for Europe. The thrust of the questioning appeared to be to establish that Mr Jospin and Mr Schroeder differed over the plans for a federal Europe, with Mr Jospin preferring instead to push for a more socialist agenda. Through the inclusion of Gerard Foukes, the aim also appeared to be to establish the view that tax harmonisation was not really on the agenda, and that France wanted the one size fits all model of Europe.
Iain Duncan Smith argued why he believed this was not the case – and why he viewed the real agenda to be very different, with Schroeder, Jospin and Blair, all heading towards a similar agenda of harmonisation. At the end, the subject switched to the issue of whether the Tories saw the election to be a referendum on Europe, and, if so, whether it was wise to make it so.
John Humphrys interview Simon Murphy and Menzies Campbell. He first asked Simon Murphy if the Jospin speech would confirm the worst fears of the Euro-sceptics that the EU. was heading towards a superstate. Mr Murphy said it wasn’t “…there is no need to get alarmed about speeches like this….and Tony Blair had a good record in standing up for Britain’s interests”.
He put it to Menzies Campbell that it would be difficult for Lionel Jospin to go further than his party on European integration. He did not answer directly, saying the speech should be seen as the first step in Mr Jospin’s campaign for the presidency, “which is why workers’ rights will be so prominent”. Mr Campbell further asserted that by 2004, when the structure of the EU was to be considered the public could be awed (rather than bamboozled) by the amount of detail that would be available.
Mr Humphrys next asked Mr Campbell whether Mr Duncan Smith’s claims about integration were borne out. Mr Campbell, predictably, said not, which Mr Humphrys challenged. Mr Campbell asserted that all the moves towards a single market and a common defence and security policy had been above board, and were based on the Maastricht treaty, which the Tories had put through.
Neither Mr Murphy nor Mr Campbell were subjected to the same degree of adversarial scrutiny as Mr Duncan Smith. John Humphrys claimed that Mr Campbell was more integrationist than Mr Jospin, but did not explore any further why, or push him how far he would go down that route. Nor did he
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 111 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______challenge the rather extraordinary assertion by Mr Campbell that the main initiatives being outlined here by Mr Jospin in 2001 were a direct result of the Tories initial espousal of the Maastricht treaty nearly a decade before.
On Today’s business news, there was an interview with a “Euro-enthusiast” Goldman Sachs banker about continuing problems for the Euro. Mary Garn said that there was new talk of the need to prop up the currency, now down to 60p, against 71p at launch. Jim O’Neil argued that the problems were caused by poor handling of interest rates by the ECB, that Germany needed to do something to reinvigorate the economy, and that the “very strong pound” was damaging some UK exporters He added that this high valuation could make it difficult for the government to join the Euro. The choice of a self-professed pro-Euro speaker to handle one of the few discussions about the Euro during the election campaign was noteworthy.
PM opened with a bulletin item:
The Conservatives have seized on a call by the French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin for business taxes to be harmonised across Europe. The Tories say his comments are further evidence of plans for closer economic and political union. They’ve also claimed that it will cost Britain £36 billion to join the Euro. Labour has rejected the estimate as ‘Tory nonsense’. Tony Blair insisted the Government did not agree with tax harmonisation, and said the Conservatives should concentrate on the real issues in the election. The Liberal Democrats say William Hague is wrong to describe the election as a referendum on the Euro.
The treatment focused on the dismissal of the Conservative claims by Labour as “Tory nonsense”. It made no effort to say on what the assertion was based, but left the impression that they were unfounded. Journalism should be more than the reporting of the word “nonsense”.
It was followed by this from Eddie Mair:
It's almost as if there are two different elections going on. The Conservatives seem to want to talk only about Europe and the pound - the other main parties aren't focusing on Europe and accuse the Tories of becoming a one-issue party. The Tories sought to focus on the question that Labour would pose in a Euro-referendum. The Conservative foreign affairs spokesman Francis Maude challenged Tony Blair to agree to six conditions to ensure a fair referendum. The entry date would have to be specifically set down, there would have to be an overhaul of the quote "rigged campaign spending limits" and an absolute ban on any pro-Euro propaganda from Brussels had to be imposed.
He said that the Tories’ attack about the referendum wording seemed to have been triggered by a statement from Robin Cook at the weekend, that the question should be “should Britain join the Euro, yes or no’, before adding that the chancellor had intervened to say that the party would not yet be getting into the business of writing questions. He then said that the Liberal Democrats did not believe the referendum would or even could be rigged.
Mr Mair added that the “argy-bargy” had come on a day when Lionel Jospin had made his “long- awaited” speech on Europe in which he had condemned the German view of a federal Europe, but had called for corporate tax harmonisation and even closer economic cooperation. Mr Mair also mentioned that Mr Jospin had called for a single security police force, before saying that Mr Hague had condemned the speech for its advocacy of tax changes, and that Mr Blair had said he did not approve of tax harmonisation, but did want to remain close to Europe “because millions of British jobs depended
Mr Mair interviewed a French radio journalist for his assessment of the Jospin speech. The interviewee agreed with Mr Mair that it could be good for Britain in that it had highlighted the differences between the French and German positions over federalism, and also argued that Mr Jospin was unlikely to get support for his view that the EU needed “economic government of the Eurozone” or that “we should finally take action to stop any behaviour detrimental to the general European interest” .
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 112 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Eddie Mair added:
Well, for one of the civil servants who negotiated British entry into the EEC in the 1970s, the Euro debate is depressing. Sir Roy Denman was the EC's ambassador to Washington for most of the 1980s. He's a Liberal Democrat and told PM that that without a proper debate there will never be a referendum on joining the Euro.
SIR ROY DENMAN: I don’t think what the Conservative Party’s line is will matter a great deal, they’ve been taken over by the loony xenophobic right, in the same way the Labour Party was taken over by the loony xenophobic left in 1983 – and will go down to the same landslide defeat, so I don’t think it greatly matters what they’re saying at the moment.
Eddie Mair responded: “But aren’t they helping to frame the debate?”. Sir Roy argued that it was unlikely that Tony Blair would hold a referendum
Mr Mair put it to him that it was not necessary to be an ardent Europhobe “to hear the kind of things that Lionel Jospin was saying today about economic union and control and so on, without a shiver going up your spine. This is something that worries a lot of people”.
Sir Roy responded:
It worries a lot of people because it’s never been fully explained to them. What Continental Europe is doing is moving slowly over the last fifty years, and the next ten to fifteen to some form of federation. It doesn’t mean like a Superstate with tyrannical control from Brussels, there is a pooling of sovereignty in the mutual interest.
Eddie Mair then asked if the question on the Euro could be loaded He said he didn’t think it mattered that much, and argued that because Tony Blair had kept silent on the issue, public opinion had swung against the Euro.
Mr Mair then asked Labour minister Brian Wilson if the referendum question mattered, and if he agreed with the Robin Cook version. Mr Wilson did not answer the question immediately, arguing that there was “something quite surreal about the way the Tories are behaving today”.
Mr Mair pushed him to answer. He said the question of the wording of a referendum only arose “after Labour has won the General Election”, then contending the question would be simple and overseen by the Electoral Commission. He added .
But why on earth are the Tories, if they’re still in any way serious about contesting this election, talking about the wording of a referendum, which by definition will only happen after they have lost.
Eddie Mair responded that he would took to the Tories about the Tories, and reverted to whether Mr Wilson agreed with the Robin Cook version of the question. He again did not respond directly, but said there was no problem over the question. He asserted:
it’s completely premature to form wording for a referendum. We don’t know when it’s going to take place, and as I say, it only takes place if there’s a Labour Government, so why the Tories should be so worried about the wording of it, you know, short of raising the white flag, I can’t think of a clearer admission of surrender.
Mr Mair switched to the other Tory claim of the day, that joining the Euro would cost £36bn. He said that although the figure had been rubbished, Chantrey Vellacott, the report’s authors, had given an interview in which they maintained the figure did stand up.
BW: I think there’s one absolute certainty in this, Eddie, that if this figure had any credibility, we’d have heard about it an awful lot earlier . . .
EM: (interrupting) Well, we did – 15 months ago.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 113 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
BW: Hang on a second, we’d have heard about it an awful lot earlier in the election campaign. And all we’re seeing now is the Tories with absolutely nothing else going for them, and trying to sort of stir up confusion and apprehension on the question of Europe – but as I say, all in a way which presupposes their own defeat. It’s a very odd tactic for a party which is ten days away from a General Election.
This was an important sequence, in which all the Tory claims about Europe that day were subjected to close scrutiny through the opinions of their opponents. Essentially, Brian Wilson said that any concerns about the European referendum question were misplaced, and in any case, represented a throwing in of the towel; and that the Chantrey Vellacott claims about £36bn were nonsense “otherwise they would have been heard about earlier in the campaign”. Sir Roy Denman, who had not previously been used as a commentator in the campaign, and whose role in it – if any – was not explained, attacked both Tony Blair for his perceived reluctance to tackle joining the Euro, and the Tories. The strongest point in his analysis was undoubtedly that the Tory party over Europe was acting as the “loony xenophobic right”.
Eddie Mair pushed Brian Wilson on the Cook question, and made it clear that he was unwilling to answer. He also put it to the French journalist that there were elements of the Jospin speech that appeared to back up the Conservative claims about a more centralised and powerful Europe. But in one central area he did not push hard at all. As he said, the programme had an interview, played later, which showed that Chantrey Vellacott were standing by their claims over the £36bn sum. He did not push Brian Wilson on this point, stopping when he had made the rather circular statement that, if the if claims stood up, they would have been mentioned earlier. This sequence contained election language red in tooth and claw, and overall, was riveting radio. What was singularly missing – apart from two brief pre-corded extracts which framed in other circumstances and did not deal head on with the extreme claims here being made about the Tories, was any voice from the Conservative party. The sequence was discussing Tory claims and their opponents had the right to respond to at least some of them But this was not so much as a response as an avalanche of claims and abuse. To achieve balance, more could and should have been included about the justification for the Tory points, particularly in response to the Denman ‘loony’ and ‘xenophobia’ claims, which were the use of extreme language not employed by other political opponents. Eddie Mair’s questioning, and the introduction did explain some of the Tory case. But it was not enough. Mr Mair also chose not to push Mr Wilson sufficiently on the £36bn claims. Here was a Labour minister at least partly on the spot; in this case, there was no real attempt to skewer him, even though the ammunition was arguably there.
At 5.15, the programme returned to Conservative claims made during the day that the referendum on the Euro would be rigged by Labour. The headline was:
Eddie Mair: Words don’t come easy – politicians argue over how to phrase the question for the Euro referendum.
(Unattributed, but John Curtice, professor of politics): Whatever are the words that politicians prefer to use, we’re going to be told those words in the campaign before we enter the polling booth, and what actually appears on the ballot paper, I suspect, is going to be relatively unimportant.
The aim of the editing was immediately to show that there was more doubt about the claim, this time form a different source. Not attributing the remark was rather an usual approach – as at this point, the listener had no clue as to who John Curtice was, and therefore how to judge the veracity or otherwise of what was being said. The impact was to diminish immediately what was being claimed.
In his intro to the interview with Mr Curtice, Eddie Maire said:
The Conservatives are continuing to accuse Labour of preparing to rig the question in any Euro referendum. The Tory claim is that voters should treat the General Election as the Euro referendum, as the question in the poll that Labour proposes would be rigged. The Conservatives opponents find that suggestion laughable, and wonder why the Party’s devoting so much energy to something which only arises if the Tories lose the election. So how much influence can the wording of a referendum question have?
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 114 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Eddie Mair introduced the word “laughable” in relation to the Tory claims. He did not say who had used it, but this was the use of strong language, suggesting that the claims were derisory.
Mr Curtice argued that the wording would not have much impact on the referendum at all, primarily because before it happened, people would have chance to think about their response. This was the opinion of one political commentator. As such, to help the listener, it could have been put into a wider context, with guidance about how authoritative was his standpoint. At the very least, some element of the argument why the wording did matter could have been included to help the listener decide from a wider context the arguments involved. As it was, this was a view that the Conservatives were wrong in their arguments, adding to the avalanche from earlier on. Mr Mair did not challenge the views of Mr Curtice at all.
After the 5.30 bulletin, the programme turned to its interview with Ronnie Fitzpatrick of Chantrey Vellacott. He broadly confirmed that the £36bn figure being used by the Tories was an accurate extraction from the report, and also that the “Labour dominated” DTI select committee had come up with a similar figure, saying that a ballpark area of £30bn was “entirely realistic”. Mr Mair put it to him that Gordon Brown had said the report was “not worth the paper it was printed upon”. Mr Fitzpatrick said that was disappointing “and it is beholden to him to come up with what he believes is the right figure”. Eddie Mair put it to him that Tony Blair and Matthew Taylor had both also said the figures were “plucked out of the air”. He said that the methodology used was sound, and that, if
The sequence established the parameters of the survey, that it had been independently conducted for Business for Sterling, and that the Labour dominated select committee had quoted a not dissimilar figure of £30bn. In addition, Mr Fitzpatrick made it clear that he accepted the Conservative’s use of the figure was a “ fair representation of the report”.
Here was evidence that seemed to some extent to support the Tory claims, and the interviewing clearly established the point, to some extent balancing the earlier sequences. But it was striking that this interview was not made use of in full in the programme itself, for example by being used in the headlines – and that other subsequent programmes did not explore significantly the points made by Mr Fitzpatrick. .
The 10pm news opened with Michael Buerk saying that Lionel Jospin had set out his vision for Europe, calling for the harmonisation of business taxes, and an EU constitution – but not a federal Europe. A report from Justin Webb summarised some of the key points of the speech, signalling that it was strongly in favour of the European Defence Force, and he opined that Mr Blair “could pick and choose the best of the German plans with the best of the French”, before pointing out that something would have to be given in exchange.
Michael Buerk then said that the Tories were still plugging away at the Euro, and asked Andrew Marr if there was any sense it as having any impact on the campaign.
He replied:
Well, only at the margins, in some parts of the country yes, but not generally. The most extraordinary thing happened this afternoon, I’d never seen it in an election campaign before, which is that the Labour Party gave details of all their internal polling, issue by issue, in an attempt to demonstrate that the Conservatives were on the wrong issue, were falling behind, that in the words of one Labour Party person, this was a bizarre and gross miscalculation of strategy, a terrible error on the Tory Party side. The question is what were they up to? It certainly wasn’t meant to be helpful advice, and our assumption is, it’s either that they intended to break morale at Conservative Central Office, and create some sense of a leadership crisis there before the election, or, possibly, to try and push the Tories off the Euro, in the thought that it is beginning to have some effect. Certainly Lionel Jospin’s speech then was bad news for Labour, and it’s dominating some of tomorrow morning’s front pages.
MB: So ten days to go – the Tories going to stick with it?
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 115 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
AM: I think they’re determined to stick with it, they’ve locked themselves into a strategy, there is internal debate inside the Conservative Party about it, but William Hague is going to go for it. It’s a human story too of course, one of the American critics of the film running at the moment, Pearl Harbour said the schmaltzy ending was a bit like trying to remake the Titanic with Kate Winslett killing the iceberg in the last scene. Well, in a sense, William Hague’s got to kill that iceberg, and he’s got ten days to go – and most of the rest of the country seem to be about as engaged as the penguins.
The explanation of the Jospin speech was minimal, with only limited examination of the significance within the general election campaign of what Newsnight later said was ”highly integrationist in tone”. This was surely a case where the main news bulletin of the day on television could have explored some of the differing views on European integration. Andrew Marr’s commentary did not touch at all on the claims and counter-claims made during the day – for example on the cost of during the Euro – but on whether the Tory stress on the Euro was having any impact on voters. His assessment, that the country seemed to be as engaged as the penguins, strongly suggested that – with many days yet to go in the campaign – the Conservatives were out of touch with the electorate.
Newsnight focused on the Jospin speech. Martha Kearney’ report first said the speech was grist for the Tory mill, then said that Labour argued that it was an issue that voters did not really care about. She brought in Matthew Taylor, the former Labour party strategist, to reinforce the point Ms Kearney then added:
Today Jospin said Europe had now become a land of peace. Disunity had given way to the quest for ever-greater union. That ever greater union includes a Rapid Reaction Force within a permanent political and military structure; a social treaty to harmonise working conditions upwards; the creation of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office; and most controversially of all, an economic government for Europe, and a call for the corporate tax system to be harmonised. That all creates difficulties for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, according to opponents of the Single Currency.
She then brought in Ruth Lea from the Institute of Directors, who argued that the speech “could not have come at a worse time because Europe was a very sensitive issue in the general election campaign”. She added:
We’ve heard about Schroeder’s way forward for a United States of Europe – very much a German federal view – today we had the French view, the centralised bureaucratic view of the United States of Europe. But believe me, one way or another, they’re both essentially talking about a United States of Europe.
This was noticeably one of the first contributions on the Jospin speech from a UK-based independent Euro-sceptic perspective.
Martha Kearney added:
Phrases like ‘strengthened political architecture’ will be seized upon by the Conservative Leader as he highlights Europe in his ‘Save the Pound’ campaign. He also claimed today that the costs of entering the Euro could be £36 billion. But the issue is double- edged.
(commentator)HEATHER GRABBLE: It’s difficult for the Conservatives too, because Jospin went out of his way to repudiate some of the suggestions made by Chancellor Schroeder of Germany, he says, for example, that we don’t want the nation states of Europe to become like States of the United States, or like the German regional states. He comes quite close to saying, ‘read my lips, no Superstate’ – which is very problematic for people like Francis Maude.
MK: Tomorrow, news from Paris is likely to fuel our election campaign again, with a speech there from the European Commission President, Romano Prodi. Almost alone in
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 116 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
his Cabinet, Tony Blair believes that Europe can be a vote-winner for Labour, but even he must think it’s time to change the agenda.
Kirsty Wark then asked Franicis Maude, in the studio, if he was sure that the figure of £36bn for joining the Euro, based on a survey done for Business for Sterling, was accurate. He responded that of what he based his £36bn claim about the Euro upon. He responded that it was not possible to be completely accurate, but that the House of Commons select committee, under a Labour chairmanship, had said it was the right number. Kirsty Wark asked him “why on earth” he was trumpeting the figure, if he was not certain it was accurate. Francis Maude repeated that it was the best estimate available, and if it was wrong, the onus was on them to say what the correct figure was.
Miss Wark turned to Brian Wilson, who again maintained the figure had been plucked from the air, then insisting it was too early to say what the figure would be. Kirsty Wark said Labour must have done some estimates. He maintained that they were working on this, and in the meantime the costs – which would not be borne by individual households – would be assimilated. Kirsty Wark said the figures were not in the manifesto. Mr Wilson changed tack, claiming that Mr Maude was incapable of talking about the benefits of the EU.
Kirsty Wark then asked Menzies Campbell if he agreed with the £30bn cost. He claimed that the cost to banking would be £1bn, compared to estimates in the report of £2.5bn. Kirsty Wark asked him if he felt it was a price worth paying. He claimed that estimates from Germany were that the Euro would cost half of one percent of GDP, “and that in two years you get all that value back”.
Kirsty Wark switched to the referendum, saying that the Conservatives had come up with a form of words for the question, which was: “The Government propose that the pound should be replaced as Britain’s national currency by the Euro. Do you agree? He responded, as he had done earlier on PM, that the fact that they had suggested it was “bizarre” as it was based on the precept that they were losing the election (because only then would a referendum take place).
Kirsty Wark responded that she did not understand why there was a problem with telling the electorate what the question might be. He maintained that there would be “no catch in the question”.
Kirsty Wark asked Menzies Campbell if there was no catch with the question, what problems there were in announcing it. He said that there was no real problem, and he was surprised that the government had not yet come up with it.
Kirsty Wark then turned to the following morning’s front pages about the Jospin speech, and put it to Brian Wilson that “no matter which way you look at it…we are headed to a United States of Europe, you are on the conveyor belt to some kind of federation, some kind of further integration”.
Brian Wilson maintained that the importance of Jospin’s speech was that it was closer to Tony Blair’s He said that this was the prime minister of France making a speech to a domestic audience, adding that the difference with Labour was that “we can have a discussion with people in Europe, we can look to the future, and all the Tories can offer is negativism, scaremongering, ludicrous figures – “.
Kirsty Wark asked if the dialogue would extend to tax harmonisation. He responded that Labour was opposed to it. She put the same point to Mr Campbell. He said the commission had made it perfectly clear that there was no political support for corporation tax harmonisation.
Kirsty Wark added:
Francis Maude, you’re not prepared to have this dialogue – you want to renegotiate all the way?
FM: No, we don’t want to renegotiate all the way, but we do want some changes, we do want a reformed, modernised European Union, the old-fashioned centralised model, with the head-office culture reigning supreme belongs to yesterday.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 117 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
KW: And as a single Government, if you go to that table and ask for it, and you don’t get it, what do you do?
FM: Well, you know, we start to lead the debate. Britain has currently been tagging along, way behind.
MC: What will you do with the Nice Treaty?
FM: Well, I’ve said exactly, we’ll renegotiate that.
(All try to speak at once)
KW: We have to move on, we have to move on. But I just want to say here, if you try and renegotiate and get nowhere, what do you do?
FM: Well, we carry on talking, we carry on negotiating, we carry on debating – but we actually lead the debate in the direction that the majority of the public want, which is a decentralised, modernised European Union – not this old-fashioned, uniform, one-size fits all model.
This was a reasonably extensive examination of some of the key European areas of debate. It tackled head on that the European agenda of Jospin and Schroeder was on the surface at least, much more integrationist, and pointed out this was an issue that was causing difficulties for Tony Blair. Kirsty Wark pushed Brian Wilson mildly on the topic, his answer being mainly that Labour was positive in engaging in dialogue with Europe. Ms Wark gave Francis Maude clear space to explain how the £36bn figure was justified, and, under sharp questioning, said he could not be sure, but that it was up to Labour to come up with an accurate figure. . Brian Wilson was asked to say what Labour expected the figure to be; he replied only that it was too early to say. There was no attempt by Miss Wark to push further on this point, or to explore his contention that the Chantrey Vellacott figures were wrong. Menzies Campbell came in with his version of what the costs were likely to be. The overall impression left to the viewers was that this, therefore, was an extremely murky area where each of the political parties had their own views.
This is a case where closer examination and better research could have established more. There was no reference to the earlier PM interview with Chantrey Vellacott, or to that the DTI Select Committee had broadly endorsed the findings.
The discussion covered the referendum question phrasing reasonably thoroughly, pushing both Mr Wilson and Mr Campbell to explain their stance. There was no attempt to bring Mr Maude in to explain further his doubts about their assertions. In the final section, Kirsty Wark switched her attention to whether or nor the Tories could achieve renegotation. She gave Francis Maude clear space to explain how he believed it could happen.
Immediately after this sequence, the analysis moved on the consideration of the European Rapid Reaction Force.
Kirsty Wark introduced the next item as follows:
Okay, let’s move on a little bit. In Mr Jospin’s speech he had also much to say on the increasingly complex relationship that Europe and Britain has with America. He urged the EU to have a consistent position on the US plans to build what he describes as a ‘controversial Missile Defence System’ – NMD - and to forge a comprehensive foreign policy to match its newfound capability with a European Rapid Reaction Force. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban reports on the strain such choices will put on Britain’s special relationship with the US.
Mark Urban’s first point was that “the really big business concerning the next foreign secretary will be the relationship between Europe and America”. He said that the FO and the Labour manifesto maintained that a choice between the two wasn’t necessary, then asking: Is this really the case?”
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 118 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
He first included a quote from Lord Renwick claiming that the new US administration was now acting as though the Cold war had never ended. After noting that US changes meant that it would presumably mean doing less in Europe, Mr Urban said that this would be exploited on this side of the Atlantic by those who think Europeans must develop their own forces. He added:
So far though, the debate about the Rapid Reaction Corps has been rather synthetic, simply adding another possible mission for military forces already committed to NATO.
There followed actuality from Timothy Garden, who argued that there was not much happening as each of the European nations’ military capabilities was on the decline, and would continue to do so “unless
Mark Urban then said the prime minister was now trying to put the brakes on France “which sees the new European force as a means to cut loose from the Americans”.
He included an extract from the Jospin speech:
Europe is now acquiring a Rapid Reaction Force within a permanent political and military institutional structure. The Union now needs a comprehensive doctrine on intervention and use of this force. The priority today is to strengthen the conflict prevention policy as a means of ensuring long-term security, at the same time, Europe must define its long-term defence strategy, in line with its own interests and in compliance with its alliances. This means in particular that it must have a consistent position on the controversial missile shield initiative taken by the United States.
Mark Urban said that it was the Balkan wars that had convinced some that there must be a European army, and others that getting the uniforms or command structure right will never be a substitute for the common political purpose that has remained so elusive in the past”. He argued that the US plans were confused, for example over whether there would be withdrawal from an area like Kosovo, before then saying that as a result of the confusion, there were mixed reactions to the moves towards developing a new missile defence system, with the Tories supporting it, Labour on hold and the Liberals against.
Sir Timothy Garden argued that because of the need for access to Fylingdales, the UK had more leverage over the issue than might first seem apparent.
Mark Urban then contended that foreign policy was moving, in any case, from being a matter of “guns and steel” more to the agenda of human rights and international justice. He said many in Europe feared the creation of an international criminal court – “and that’s the sort of issue that’s defining the new
The weakening of the old Atlantic alliance is a long-term but clear pattern of the last decade. How should Britain manage this risk? Keeping Europeans and Americans on the same side – that’s a key question for the future.
Kirsty Wark then put it to Brian Wilson that he must be delighted that Mr Jospin wanted a rapid reaction force with a permanent structure because “that’s what you want isn’t it?”
He replied that his party did, and that it would not conflict with NATO. Kirsty Wark asked if he believed the new force and NATO would be under one command. He replied that the new force could be a force for the good throughout the world “where ever there is conflict, wherever there are humanitarian problems”, then observing that those against it were scare stories.
Kirsty Wark asked Francis Maude what he thought as there were rumours that the US might withdraw from the Balkans.
He replied that it was terribly important that the US stayed engaged in Europe. He said it was not a symmetrical arrangement and the UK had to work to keep them engaged, adding that NATO was a terribly successful European defence organisation. He added that he was concerned that any moves on defence should continue to be done within NATO. Kirsty Wark said that the plan for the EU defence force was that it would be done within NATO. Francis Maude said that the plan was to have a separate
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 119 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
EU military HQ and military committee, with a chairman just appointed who came from a non-NATO country.
Kirsty Wark asked Menzies Campbell whether this was scaremongering. He said negotiations were still going on following Nice, but said that the EU force would only get involved in NATO declined, “ a
Francis Maude denied this. Kirsty Wark said Brian Wilson was nodding his head…”it must be policy”. Menzies Campbell continued that both operational and strategic planning would remain within NATO. Francis Maude said it didn’t. Kirsty Wark asked whether this was a further excuse for the US to disengage from Europe. Francis Maude said “That is the danger”, before Mr Campbell asserted that “over a long period of time” the US could not be relied upon to some to the aid of Europe every time something goes wrong. It was therefore incumbent on Europe to look after itself.
Kirsty Wark asked Francis Maude what was his problem with having a unified command under NATO. He replied he didn’t have a problem with that. Kirsty Wark asked Brian Wilson, “for the sake of clarity”, whether the force would be under NATO or not. Brian Wilson said that NATO would be the prime, and primary agency for security, then asked Mr Maude why he was trying to drive a wedge though this. Francis Maude said that Robin Cook had written all the new documents for the new force…and added that he could not see why all the new structures were being created. Brian Wilson said he was always trying to drive wedges, always negative; Francis Maude said we should build on something that we already had that was terrifically good.
Kirsty Wark then asked Francis Maude how much the new missile defence system was likely to cost. Francis Maude, against a suggestion that it could be £36bn, said it wasn’t yet known what system it would be, and it was therefore impossible to cost. He denied that the Tories were automatically prepared to pay, but would work in principle in developing new systems of support with the US.
Menzies Campbell said that the likely cost was £60bn (not pointing out that this as a whole, not for the UK), and argued that with the recent changes in the senate, the next foreign affairs chairman was very sceptical about the missile proposal.
Brian Wilson denied that Labour was on the fence over the issue and claimed that Labour government had been building bridges with the US administration.
This was a thoughtful and focused discussion on some of the central points about the US-UK relationship and the likely impact of the proposals for the EU defence force. It did not explore how advanced the plans themselves were – nor put Brian Wilson under close scrutiny about how far it would go if the US put pressure on over NATO. Francis Maude clearly put the concerns about control, and Menzies Campbell the counter-arguments that the force would only step in if NATO weren’t prepared to, with Brian Wilson adding that Europe’s defence would primarily remain under NATO.
May 29 This was a day in which the editorial focus switched towards asking whether the Conservative strategy was working – and in which, programmes went looking for dissent within Tory ranks from the focus on Europe. It is impossible to know which came first, but from this day forward, the assumption was almost openly that the election had been lost.
The newspaper reviews during the morning focused on reaction to the Jospin speech, pointing out that the Euro-sceptic press saw it as evidence of a call for a superstate that had put Mr Blair on the defensive, while the Guardian believed that Jospin had rejected a federal Europe. They also mentioned an Independent item saying that Romano Prodi would give ammunition to the Tories by calling for more powers for Brussels.
The business news mentioned that Wim Duisenberg, of the ECB, had explained why he had cut interest rates – but did not use this important peg for a wider discussion of the performance of the Euro-zone.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 120 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
In Tim Franks’ round-up of election issues he mentioned Europe only briefly, to say that “Labour says that the Tories don’t want to talk about taxes, because they have only one issue to bang on about, and
A little later, John Humphrys introduced an item about “Tory rumblings”:
Alistair Campbell took the unusual step, the Prime Minister’s press secretary that is, who some call the real Deputy Prime Minister, he took the unusual step yesterday of boasting openly about Labour’s private opinion polls. Apparently they suggest the Tory campaign on Europe, taxes, and just about anything else for that matter is making no impact. Well, they would say that you might say, but it is true that the opinion polls overall, the public polls, the ones we know about, aren’t shifting. And one Shadow Cabinet Minister, Tim Yeo, seemed to acknowledge at the weekend that there will be a Labour majority.
Tim Franks claimed that one shadow cabinet minister had told him only that he didn’t think there would be a swing to Labour, “which didn’t sound like a charter for victory”. He then included a quote from Stephen Dorrell that focus on Europe had “masked bigger concerns” and led voters to the conclusion that the party was out of touch.
Mr Franks said that despite this, William Hague continued to bang the drum on Europe. He added:
yet behind the cheers of his supporters, there lies a paradox for the Party. Most British people according to the polls don’t want to go into a Single Currency, at the same time they’re not giving the Tories credit for agreeing with them. Why not? Simple, says that pollster Bob Wooster – Europe is not that important to voters.
BOB WOOSTER: It’s just a second, even third rank issue. What’s more, the vast majority of people do consider it an important issue, already have their minds made up. So it is not going to appeal to anyone except his core vote.
Mr Franks added that “even one of the most Euro-sceptic members of the Tory frontbench says that it has been a mistake to paint this election in a landscape so dominated by Europe”, adding:
As the Shadow Minister put it, Hague has flunked Key Stage 1 politics, no election is a single issue vote. At least, for the time being, the Conservative pro-Europeans are not publicly stirring dissent – our own utterly unscientific survey of voters canvassed in Ken Clarke’s Nottingham constituency testified to that.
He concluded:
A silence which the pro-Europeans say they’ll end with leadership-blasting artillery on June 8th. But nonetheless, and despite the fatalism about the result, a number of Tory frontbenchers believe that Mr Hague is more secure now than he has been for a while. They give two reasons: expectations are now so low, that even if there’s a triple figures majority for Labour, as long as it’s just over a hundred, several Shadow Cabinet Ministers say the result could be presented as something of a victory. And the sense is that the appetite for a leadership challenge is not there. Those closest to Michael Portillo say he doesn’t want the job now. And although some support is coalescing around Iain Duncan-Smith, there is a feeling that, as one Shadow Minister put it, he just doesn’t look or sound different enough to the current leader. Tory frontbenchers do believe there’s scope yet to improve in the polls – very few though are privately predicting anything other than a heavy defeat.
Political correspondent Tim Franks, basing his evidence on what Conservatives were telling him privately, suggested that the Tories were heading for a heavy defeat – and that over-concentration on a single issue, described variously as Europe and the Euro, was the reason. The feature mentioned one on-the-record voice, Steven Dorrell, and referred to one Euro-Sceptic front bench spokesman. Together they were used to suggest that there was considerable dissatisfaction with the way the campaign was
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 121 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______being mounted, that Hague had “flunked key stage one politics”, and that a revolt was likely after June 8.
It seems hard to justify why the focus on Tory splits and dissension was so heavy at a time when balance was still supposed to be applied. There were no voices here to explain or justify the Tory approach – only ones opposed to it.
After the 7.30 news, the programme returned to the Tory claims about referendum rigging, through an interview first with Sam Younger of the Election Commission and then with Michael Portillo. Mr Younger explained that it was down to Parliament to set the question. He denied allegations that fairness would not be taken into account ins setting the question, and said that – as Mr Blair had said – the time was not yet right to commit to what the question would be.
Mr Portillo made the claims in the interview that followed that there was scope for the question to be rigged by being “permissive”, that it was noticeable that the government had not committed to what the question would be and that the prime minister was trying to put off discussion about the Euro.
John Humphrys put it to him that he must think the electorate “pretty daft” if he thought the electorate could be misled in this way. Michael Portillo said that “we should not be naïve about this, as people spent lots of money on advertising. John Humphrys claimed that was a separate issue. Michael Portillo said not:
No, it’s the heart of the issue. We in Britain have come to believe, over centuries of democratic experience, evolving democratic experience, that when we go to the polls, things will be fair, that there will be, in the modern jargon, a level playing field. For the first time, this Labour Government is proposing that elections in this country, vital matters for the future of the country should not be done on a level playing field. They will not accept an obligation that the question should be fair; they specifically say that they’re not creating a level playing field; they specifically legislate in order that those people urging the abolition of the pound should be allowed to spend more than those urging the retention of the pound . . .
John Humphrys changed tack, claiming that it was extraordinary that Mr Portillo accepted there was going to be a referendum because it showed that he had accepted that Labour would win. He mentioned again Tim Yeo betting that Labour would have a majority.
Mr Portillo strongly denied this. This was wide-ranging interview that allowed Mr Portillo to explain in full why he thought the Conservative claims were justified. But the questioning again returned at the end to the topic of defeat, and to Tory problems within its own ranks.
John Prescott was interviewed after the 8pm news. A small section was devoted to Europe. James Naughtie asked him whether the decision on the Euro would be a collective one, not one taken by the Treasury.
John Prescott said that all decisions by the cabinet were collective, and that the decision on the Euro referendum would be taken by Parliament . Mr Naughtie then asserted that this meant that the decision “wouldn’t be a cabinet decision’. Mr Prescott said that his party trusted the people and as with the Common Market, would give them a chance for a vote. Mr Naughtie then asked him how ken he was on the Euro. He said the party had a future in Europe, then added that before the UK went into the Euro, five economic tests would have to be met.
This was a superficial exchange in the very narrow area in which the Labour party was prepared to talk about the Euro. James Naughtie tried to get a response about whether there was any problem relating who in the government would make the decision on the Euro ,and on whether Mr Prescott himself was keen on the Euro. In both areas, the response was neutral.
In PM, the programme explored briefly whether John Monks, in calling for a European model of Labour, was at odds with the Labour party, as Stephen Byers had also said that social justice should not get in the way of business success. This showed an important division between elements of Labour on the attitude towards Europe. This could have been examined further,. Beyond this very brief mention.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 122 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
It was interesting to note the contract between this treatment of a Labour problem and the ones for the Tories epitomised by Lord Brittan, as outlined below. A Labour trade and industry secretary saying “Labour rights should not be a priority over business success” was an important development, which was here not properly explored.
Eddie Mair opened an interview with Lord Brittan with the following observations:
Well, as the parties argue it out over Europe, the voices of Tory Europe-enthusiasts have been strangely muted so far. But now, in an interview for PM, Lord Brittan has spoken out. As Leon Brittan, he was Trade and Industry Secretary under Margaret Thatcher. He went on to become Vice President of the European Commission, we asked him who had the better position, Tony Blair with his policy of engagement, or William Hague, with his desire to renegotiate the Treaty of Nice.
His credentials thus established, Lord Brittan said that Tony Blair hadn’t given a lead over Europe, while Mr Hague’s aim of renegotiation was not realistic or “in our interest”. Eddie Mair asked if he would clarify why Mr Blair had not given a lead. Lord Britton did not really answer directly, saying instead that the idea that the election was the last chance to stop the Euro “implies that the British people are not going to recognise skullduggery if there is any”.
Mr Mair then asked whether he thought renegotiation was possible, as Mr Hague claimed that it was, and as Mrs Thatcher, against all the odds (he said), had shown. Lord Brittan replied that the situation was not the same:
Well, there’s a big difference. The opt-out was part of the Treaty that was being negotiated, and we were in the middle of the negotiation of the Treaty at getting the opt- out. The hand-back of money was a complaint about a particular issue that was a running sore as far as Britain was concerned, and Britain was in a special position as far as that was concerned. As far as the Nice Treaty is concerned, that has been negotiated by all the Member States including Britain; it’s a complex balance, if you remember how difficult it was to get agreement on it, the idea that anyone is going to be prepared to unpick all that, frankly, I think is quite unrealistic. To want to take steps which will inevitably be interpreted as making that process more difficult seems to me to run counter to what we’ve been fighting for, for a decade, and also to be completely unnecessary, because I don’t think the Nice Treaty contains the kind of things that we should fight against. It might have done, but we fought successfully against that.
EM: During this election campaign, where are the Tory Europe and Euro- enthusiasts?
LB: Well many people have felt that the time for an argument about that is after the election because of a desire to retain unity until after the election. But I know a number of people will feel that this is a debate that has to be revived after the election, whether we win or whether we don’t win.
EM: For a voter who’s not sure about the Single Currency, a little ambivalent, who should they vote for?
LB: Well, I think that people should vote Conservative in any event. I’ve said to William Hague and to others that we ought not to be making the European issue the defining issue in the election, because first of all it actually divides us, and secondly, I don’t actually agree with the policy, and thirdly, I think that for most people other issues are more important, and we should focus on the excellent policies that the Conservative Party has on a number of issues, like on economic affairs, on trade, on education – and deal effectively with those issues, rather than focus, in the concluding part of the campaigning, excessively on an issue that frankly is not proving a winning issue for the Conservative Party.
This gave Leon Brittan clear space to explain his views. Those views on Europe were clearly diametrically opposed to those of Mr Hague on almost every element of European policy, from the
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 123 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Treaty of Nice to its use in election strategy. The set-up did not make any effort to explain Mr Brittan’s standing in the party – was this a lone maverick voice, or the tip of an iceberg?. The intro returned to the theme that the pro-Euro faction of the party had been “strangely silent”, suggesting that they had been muted perhaps not of their own choosing. Irrespective of the depth of splits in the Tories about Europe, this was production that did not make the issues sufficiently clear. Lord Brittan did say that despite his differences with the party, people should vote Conservative. But the overall impact of this piece was nonetheless to draw attention to the perceived Tory divisions over Europe, without any editorial analysis which put them into context.
Eddie Mair said that William Hague had “evaded the question of how the Treaty of Nice would be renegotiated. He did not say exactly why, or in what circumstances, and without access to what he was referring to, it is hard to make a judgement about whether his assessment was accurate.
An obvious question that was not put to Leon Brittan was about disloyalty.
On the 10pm news, John Pienaar’s item about the election, angled on the Romano Prodi speech, mentioned that Mr Brown and Mr Blair might be at odds over the Euro policy, and clearly put into context both Mr Hague’s concerns over the Prodi approach and Mr Blair’s stance of closer co- operation. Mr Blair’s views were buttressed by those of the Liberal Democrats, underlying that Europhiles had a 2:1 inclusion in most pieces about Europe . Mr Pienaar concluded:
Tony Blair won’t be asking his party to start campaigning for the Euro at this stage. But he does believe there are votes to be won on Europe if he strikes the right tone. And that’s what he tried to do today – a pro-European message, delivered in a patriotic and combative tone. Mr Blair isn’t just trying to overcome the Tory’s Euro-sceptic arguments, he’d also like to prove wrong those Labour colleagues who’d rather talk about something else.
There was mention from Peter Sissons that the polls suggested that Europe did not matter.
The main item on Newsnight was an interview of William Hague by Jeremy Paxman. One third of the exchange was about Europe.
This was a brutally direct interview by any standards, conducted by Mr Paxman with a tone of incredulity bordering on hostility throughout. Rarely on British television has so direct an approach been adopted. He chose to focus on two primary questions – why the Tories had apparently made this a referendum on Europe, and why Mr Hague would not to commit to the Euro beyond the next Parliament . Of note, was that the latter was exactly the same area as that chosen by John Humphrys earlier in the campaign. The answers given here were more or less exactly the same. Mr Paxman’s judgement in pressing so hard for so long on the issue of whether or not Mr Hague was committed in principal against the Euro seemed be that this clearly exposed a weakness in Mr Hague’s and the Tory’s stance; that the compromise the party said had adopted was not based on principle, but expedience. For some, this may have bee a revelation. But for most in a relatively sophisticated audience, it is hard to believe that this narrow concentration revealed anything substantially new.
In the end, this looked like a wasted opportunity – the equivalent of a heavyweight punching into the air without really connecting. Questions like ‘what does it feel like to know you are going to lose’, and “why do these polls also show they don’t really like you’ – moving into the overtly personal – were not productive in their responses and did not much help the audience to understand better Mr Hague’s stance. There was conspicuously, in this generous allocation of space, no attempt to tackle equally important issues such as the practicalities of renegotiation, or the nature of Mr Hague’s fears about integration. On these topics, Mr Paxman, could, had he wished, been equally hostile but also perhaps have opened up new ground. There was no mention, either, of the other important new issues of the past couple of days raised by Mr Prodi and Mr Jospin’s speeches, or of Mr Blair’s claim that engagement was the solution, not retraction.
Mr Paxman’s aim was to show that Mr Hague and the Tories were hopelessly compromised in their stance on Europe. He succeeded in showing that the compromise did exist – but also that Mr Hague was adamant that the Tories were more united than before.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 124 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
After the Hague interview, Martha Kearney gave a round-up of the progress of the campaign. This is what she said:
That ringing endorsement (by John Major of William Hague) isn’t shared by all of William Hague’s colleagues by any means. I’ve spoken to Conservatives on the left and right of the party, and many candidates report that their leader is a negative factor on the doorstep. And there’s disquiet too about focusing so strongly on the pound. Even one Euro-sceptic former Minister said, ‘we’re getting perilously close to becoming a single issue campaign’. And the challenge for the Conservatives is getting harder, according to a definitive academic study on the campaign, given exclusively to Newsnight.
This was a very one-sided appraisal that came very close to sounding like straight opinion. Like Tim Franks earlier in the day, she brought into play behind-the scenes briefings to add to the tone of disunity. She did not mention other senior Tories who didn’t feel that this was a single-issue campaign. The impression given was that the focus on the pound was a turn-off for voters - without any balancing factors.
There was also an interview of Nigel Farage, of UKIP, conducted by Jeremy Paxman in the same tone as with William Hague. Jeremy Paxman first established that he did not expect to win the election, then asked how many sears he hoped to win. Nigel Farage claimed his party had a good chance of winning four or five, but said it wasn’t just about winning but getting lots of votes. Jeremy Paxman said the intervention of James Goldsmith last time “ensured various Conservatives did not get elected”, adding:
Now, given that that is the only party that is committed to saving the pound, how on earth are you advancing the cause of Sterling?
NF: Well, they’re committed to deferring a decision on whether to give up the pound for three or four years – that’s all they’re saying. I mean, they have no policy on Europe, they have no real policy on Europe. ‘In Europe, not run by Europe’ is not a policy, Labour . . .
JP: (interrupting) So if the consequence of you standing was that a Conservative did not get elected – be it someone like Michael Portillo, whom you’re standing against, or Francis Maude, that wouldn’t bother you?
NF: Well, actually we’re different to the Referendum Party, they did take Conservative votes, but UKIP will take overwhelmingly more votes from Labour and Lib Dem than we’ll take from Conservative, and we have the evidence from the 1999 European elections to prove that.
JP: But if the consequence of it was that Conservatives didn’t get elected, that’s cool is it?
NF: Well, the form is that Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives all support being in the European Union, the UKIP says we should come out of the European Union. And if before this election, Conservative candidates had stood up and said, we think we should come out of the EU, we would not have opposed them.
This was the main appearance of the party on Newsnight, and Jeremy Paxman chose to focus on the issue of UKIP taking support away from the Conservatives. Nigel Farage responded that his party was opposed to all those who did not want a referendum on leaving the EU, and not just the Tories, and would win votes not just from the Conservatives. This was in clear contradiction to what Mr Paxman had first claimed, but he nevertheless continued through the interview in the general assumption that withdrawal from the EU was only an issue which affected Conservative voters (despite earlier in the campaign interviewing Austin Mitchell, who had shown that support for a referendum also came from the left) . This was a narrow approach which clearly revealed that the editorial analysis of EU withdrawal was not properly covered.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 125 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
May 30 A bulletin item in Today about Europe was Tony Blair’s claim, made in the Sun, that it would absurd to think that Britain could be bounced into the Euro. It also mentioned William Hague’s pledge to continue fighting the Single Currency.
This was followed by a report that Britain was to receive a £2.8bn rebate as a result of the commission’s under-spending on regional aid. Angus Roxborough put it into the context of the election by adding that this was enough to finance the NHS for a month. He said the Tories were likely to counter any Labour claims about the money by pointing out that it has been Mrs Thatcher who had negotiated the rebate system in 1984.
The newspaper review focused heavily on a feature in the Times in which William Hague was said to have looked “tired and defensive” and had stepped back from his claim that the election was the last chance to save the pound. It also mentioned the prime minister’s interview in the Sun, and a Daily Mirror headline – Silly Billy – which pointed out that the head of Vodafone did not agree with his policy on Europe.
In an interview about the latest developments in the campaign, Mark Seddon, the editor of Tribune claimed that no-one was actually saying anything about Europe because “just as it became interesting
John Stafford of the campaign for Conservative party reform, agreed. He contended:
They’re absolutely heading down that slope, and the European campaign is a good example. For ten days, Europe has been on the agenda, and yet I have not heard a single politician – or for that matter a single journalist ask a politician – anything about democracy in the European Union. We had a big speech from Romano Prodi, and yet who is he? He’s unelected by the people, we have a council of Ministers that meet in secret – one of only three in the world, the others being North Korea and Cuba . . .
JN: But surely these issues are gone over endlessly, when we talk about the Schroeder plan or the Jospin plan?
JS: They haven’t been talked about in terms of democracy and the people having a say. And what is happening is that democracy is being destroyed, and in that process, freedom is being lost, and the politicians seem to ignore issues such as globalisation that effect everybody, because all they’re concerned about is their own personal power base, and that’s why we’ve moved into this personality area, they’re not talking for the British people, they’re talking for themselves.
This was a fascinating interchange in which Mr Stafford and Mr Seddon both alleged that , important issues relating to Europe were simply not being discussed. This was not picked up or analysed subsequently.
John Humphrys introduced an item about Europe by observing that a poll in the Guardian had found that “Europe came way down the list of issues worrying people when it came to deciding how they would vote in the election, 11th to be precise” He said that despite this, big things were happening on the European front – the leaders staking out their positions on what sort of EU they wanted. He said that Belgium was due to take over the EU presidency, and interviewed John Michael, an EU spokesman for Belgium, about what sort of EU issues were likely to emerge during the Belgian presidency. He replied that he wanted a federal Europe – not implying that states did not exist any more but that they handed over some of their competencies to Europe, with common policies and approaches to justice, and external relations. Mr Humphrys asked if this meant that he wanted a “government for Europe”. Mr Michael replied that “it was very important to have institutions balanced
John Humphrys then turned to Jonathan Faull, Romano Prodi’s spokesman, asking him if he thought it was wrong for Mr Prodi and Mr Jospin to make “provocative” speeches during an election period. Mr Faull responded that a debate was going on about the future of the EU and that the speeches were not
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 126 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______intended to be provocative. He stuck to the point when further pressed, pointing out there were 15 member states and therefore elections were going on all the time. Mr Humphrys then asked him if Romano Prodi was speaking with the backing of the majority of those 15 when he called for greater powers for the commission and a more centralised EU. Jonathan Faull said that what Mr Prodi was for a political counterpart of the ECB “to be embedded in the commission”.
This sequence was unusual during the campaign in that Mr Michael was a voice from Europe speaking unfiltered (as opposed in the words of a BBC correspondent, or through a commission spokesman) about how he saw the vision for Europe. It showed him embracing “federalism”. John Humphrys chose to ask Mr Faull about whether the speeches of Mr Jospin and Mr Prodi could be seen as interference in the UK election. Rather predictably, perhaps, he said not.
At 7.14am, Sue MacGregor, reporting from Bletchley, first said that Tony Blair was due in the constituency that evening, then added that John Major and Lady Thatcher had been there the previous day. She included a vox pop giving reaction of Conservative party workers to Lady Thatcher, who variously and unsurprisingly said that she was right on the Euro, that she had been a great leader, and that she was still needed. Sue MacGregor asked one voter “what she had and he (William Hague)
Ms MacGregor then turned to her interview of Mrs Thatcher, recorded the previous afternoon, with the first question whether this had been her toughest election campaign. Mrs Thatcher replied that they were all exciting.
Sue MacGregor said that this time, they had a very hard road to hoe. Lady Thatcher said that every election was hard, but there was a good chance of winning. The interchange continued:
You don’t agree entirely with William Hague about his strategy on the Euro, you would rule out joining it forever, he’s ruling is out for the lifetime of the next Parliament . Is he right to do that?
LT: Of course, if you don’t have charge of your own currency, you don’t have charge of your own freedom, it’s as serious as that – a free country wants its own , ours has been a worldwide currency for years. The thought that anyone should give it up is to me utterly repugnant, and that would be enough to throw them out.
SM: But is he right simply to look ahead for one Parliament , and not, as you do, look ahead much further than that? You say ‘never’, ‘never the Euro’.
LT: I say always to our own currency – what they say to the Euro doesn’t matter to me. We have had had our own currency. There used to be a whole Sterling Area, you and I are just about old enough to remember it. There was a Sterling Area across the world. And the idea that we should give up our own currency, Sterling, is utterly repugnant, and I don’t think many people would want to give it up. The moment you go , it’s a spineless thing isn’t it.
SM: But curiously, it hasn’t been an enormously important issue with the general public this time round . . .
LT: Because they don’t believe it’s ever going to come to pass – we shall keep Sterling, period. And that’s that.
SM: Will you keep stirring it up?
LT: If they think that they’re going to go to the Euro, I shall keep stirring up Sterling, and I shall win. Because people want Sterling, they know it, you don’t just change your currency. Is that clear?
SM: Lady Thatcher, thank you very much.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 127 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
LT: God bless.
JOHN HUMPHREYS: Indeed! I think that was clear wasn’t it?
The purpose of the interview was to show that Mrs Thatcher’s view on the Euro was that she did not want to join ever, at variance with party policy. This had already been established earlier in the campaign – in her speech in Bournemouth – so this was hardly new. Within it, Sue McGregor also repeated the line – based on opinions polls – that the “Euro wasn’t a terribly important issue to voters time round” .
In an interview with John Major, James Naughtie explore mainly whether the Treaty of Nice could, as Mr Hague claimed, be renegotiated. He said that it could, citing his own experience during Maastricht. Mr Naughtie then asked whether he felt comfortable “in a party, parts of which seem to regard Ken Clarke as an extremist of Europe”. Mr Mahor said he did think he was an extremist, and denied that it was possible to muzzle him in any way, as Mr Naughtie had suggested.
In the interview, James Naughtie sought to see how much John Major supported the main Conservative policy on the Euro, renegotiation of the Nice Treaty, and to establish whether he believed Kenneth Clarke had been muzzled. In his answers, Mr Major plainly put forward that he did believe that Nice could be changed – as he had done with Maastricht – that he did not agree with saying no to the Euro for ever, but did agree with Mr Hague’s current tactics, did not agree that Mr Clarke had been in any sense muzzled, and felt hat Labour would make a tactical mistake if it went for an early referendum.
An interchange with Glynn Davies, the acting ambassador to The US, focused on two main issues, the moves towards to a new missile defence system, and the US reaction to the development of the European Raid Reaction Force. It was hinged on the visit to Europe of Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, to talk to NATO. James Naughtie’s question on the rapid reaction force was whether it would be viewed as a competitor to NATO.
Glynn Davies said that the US was content with the process that was underway at the moment to “figure out exactly how NATO and the EU will lash up eventually”. He added that he did not think policy makers in Washington would be content until they saw exactly the architecture and institutions that were erected on both sides in order for the two institutions to talk to each other.
Mr Davies’s response seemed guarded, and, as an answer, did not quite fit Mr Naughtie’s original question. It would have been useful if he had been questioned further to clarify whether the US administration was likely to oppose the force, and if so, on what grounds. There was no attempt to find Mr Davies’s reaction to Jospin’s speech, which had contained direct references to the importance of the development of the defence policy. This was one of the few occasions during the campaign when there was an opportunity to get a direct response to an important European issue; in the event, the treatment barely skimmed the surface of an important point of difference between the main political parties.
At 8.52pm, as stop press-type item, the programme carried a short interview with John Leigh, a former junior Conservative minister who had defected to the Liberal Democrats on the grounds that he wanted to join the Single Currency. This was another item that put the emphasis on Tory problems over Europe.
PM followed the 5pm bulletin with one of the toughest sequences of the election campaign. This was the transcript in full.
EDDIE MAIR: ‘What is the point of having general elections if we are not going to talk about the great issues and fundamental choices facing the people of Britain today?’ That's William Hague's response when it's suggested to him that he doesn't go on about the Euro so much. He promised to "continue to make the retention of the pound and the independence of Britain a key issue in this election." Well, perhaps. But there are indications the focus of the Tory campaign may be changing in the face of a criticism from former ministers, and polling evidence that people rate Europe and the Euro way below other issues. The rot set in last night on PM, when the Conservative peer Leon Brittan attacked Mr Hague's strategy.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 128 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
LEON BRITTAN: I think that it is not realistic, nor in our interest to try to renegotiate the Treaty of Nice, we stood up for and successfully defended the British veto on tax harmonisation and on many other things. To say this election is the last chance to stop the Euro implies that the British people are not going to be able to recognise any skulduggery if there is any.
EM The former science minister Ian Taylor waded in to say ‘only Euro-fanatics believe Europe is the issue’. Stephen Dorrell said "all the evidence is that Europe ranks lower in terms of priority, particularly for floating voters than health, education and law enforcement". Well, he could have been quoting from today's ICM Guardian poll which says pretty much that. The issues that voters rated above membership of the EU or joining the Euro were: the health service, law and order, education, the economy, employment, pensions, taxation, public transport and asylum and immigration. Not the best news for a party which has had as its central election theme – ‘Save the Pound’. Telling people the election is their last chance to save the pound; unveiling a clock counting down to election day - their last chance to save the pound. Here’s our political correspondent, Norman Smith.
NORMAN SMITH: A wet and windy morning on the outskirts of Glasgow. Hardly the sort of weather to revive Mr Hague’s spirits, but he brushed away the inevitable questions about doom and disaster, as predicted by the polls.
JOURNALIST: This morning’s poll for the Guardian makes your prospects look gloomier than they have looked so far.
WILLIAM HAGUE: No, certainly not. We don’t take any notice of opinion polls, and in fact already this morning in Scotland, the candidates have been telling me what a good reception they’re having, how well the campaign is going.
NS: And Mr Hague’s sense of humour, that most effective of defences for a politician under pressure appeared intact, when pressed about that advert with the Lady ‘T’ hairdo.
WH: I think the policies are the issue in this election. It’d be nice to have all that hair, I’m not sure about the earrings. (laughter from audience) It’s just trivia isn’t it.
NS: And questions about the grumblings from Lord Brittan and others were similarly waved away. Meanwhile, back in London, to add to Tory difficulties, a little known former Conservative Minister called John Leigh announced he was joining the Liberal Democrats
JOHN LEIGH: Well, I think it is very much yesterday’s party. I think if you look at the Conservative supporters in the country and the activists, they are in the nicest way older members of the community. It’s not a party that’s appealing to the young people.
NS: And at the morning press conference there was some deft wriggling by Michael Portillo on Mr Hague’s claim that this election was the last chance to save the pound. Now, it was merely the last fair chance.
MICHAEL PORTILLO:We’ve talked about it as a referendum on the Euro, because we want to make clear to people that this may be the last fair vote that they get on the subject.
NS: In a rugby tournament back north of the border in Sterling, Mr Hague looked on, all smiles, no hint of the pressure – a confident welcome awaiting him from local Tories.
LOCAL TORY: And I will hand over to him now to address us, the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr William Hague.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 129 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
NS: From Mr Hague, not a whisker of a movement, or a flicker of an expression for us to interpret or misinterpret. But local Tories are in no doubt – it is the pollsters and the media that have got it wrong about Mr Hague.
LOCAL TORY TWO: Why, the opinion polls are wrong all the time, they’ve been wrong for years now, they’ve probably been asking the wrong people.
LOCAL TORY THREE:I think he’s doing wonderfully under the circumstances.
NS: Under the circumstances. Mr Hague may not be downcast, but he does appear on the defensive.
EDDIE MAIR: Norman Smith reporting. Well, live now to the Conservative spokesman, Andrew Lansley. Hello to you.
ANDREW LANSLEY: Good afternoon.
EM: Is Thursday the last chance to save the pound or not?
AL: It is the last chance for a fair vote . . . .
EM: Ah!
AL: . . .on keeping the pound, exactly, because people should understand the reason why; because we already know that the Labour Party in Government have fixed the Referendums Bill, so that a ‘Yes’ campaign would have twice as much to spend as a ‘No’ campaign. We know they’ve structured the legislation so they can choose the question, and they don’t have to have a fair question, the Electoral Commission only have to make it intelligible, we know they can choose the timing . . .
EM: (speaking over) So it’s not the last chance to save the pound?
AL: . . .and we know that the day after polling day, if Labour got the chance, they would try to run our economy with an objective of scrapping the pound, rather than a Conservatives Government, which would run our economy in the national interest and keep the pound. And that can make an enormous difference.
EM Well, let’s talk about the Conservative strategy if I may, because before today it was quite clear, and we had the clock unveiled, we had the posters, we had the banners, every time William Hague opens his mouth, election day is the last chance to save the pound. And today, it’s ‘maybe the last fair vote people get on the subject’. Now why has the strategy changed?
AL: Well it hasn’t changed at all.
EM :Yes it has.
AL: All of these things mean exactly the same thing.
EM: No they don’t.
AL: (laughs) Well, forgive me, if I may, I’ll explain why: because the last chance to save the pound is the last chance for people to have a vote, according to our democratic system for a Government which is committed to keeping the pound. If people do not, after the next election, after the 7th June, have a Government committed to keeping the pound, they will have a Labour Government, which not only will run the economy with the objective of scrapping the pound, will spend millions, if not billions of pounds for the conversion to the Euro and the preparations for it, use all the taxpayers’ money and all the resources of Government to try and persuade people that it is inevitable that one has
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 130 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
to join the Euro; and then have a referendum that they have fixed in advance in terms of both the question and the resources for the campaign.
EM: So, you disagree with Lord Brittan when he says ‘the British people a to be able to recognise any skulduggery if there is any?’ – he wondered.
AL: Well, it’s not a matter of skulduggery; it’s a matter of fixing a referendum question. We know that the Labour Party are not above trying to fix a referendum – Mr Blair was willing to do it in his own party, whether it was for the mayoralty candidate in London, or for the leadership candidate in Wales. I’m afraid I don’t trust the Labour Party, I don’t think the British people should trust the Labour Party in this matter. If it will suit them, they will not only run the economy in a way that is designed to scrap the pound, but they will try to engineer a referendum for that purpose as well.
EM: Can you remember a better run Conservative campaign.
AL: Erm. I don’t remember a recent campaign that has been better run. I was responsible for the Conservative Party’s research in the 1992 campaign, and I can say from my personal experience that that campaign I think was a good one, but I think this is a better one in many ways, because it is more determined in its message, it is more consistent in its delivery of that message, it is more successful in ensuring that the issues that matter to the people of Britain are being presented and discussed.
EM: How many posters on health have you unveiled?
AL: Well, over the whole campaign, most of our advertising has been in relation to public services – for example, the series of posters that said: ‘you paid the tax so where are the teachers?’; ‘you paid the tax so where is our operation?’; ‘you paid the tax so
EM: That was before the campaign.
AL: I’m sorry?
EM: That was before the campaign of course.
AL: Well, I’m sorry, when do you think the campaign started? As far as we were concerned we were fighting a campaign for the next election from the beginning of this year. And most of our advertising budgets have been spent on that campaign, and the follow-up one, which focused on the principle reason why Labour are failing to deliver on public services – which is because front line public sector workers, like teachers and nurses and policemen are engaged more in bureaucracy form filling and pen-pushing then they are in getting out there, into the classroom, acting as professional teachers as they want to, or nurses and looking after patients, as they wish to, or police fighting crime as they want to.
EM: Isn’t the truth that in ‘save the pound’ or in ‘this is your last, or second last chance for a fair vote’, whatever it is now, that in choosing that issue, you have chosen the issue at the bottom of the list of people’s concerns?
AL: No, we’ve chosen issues throughout this campaign where we can show not only where Labour have failed, against the measure of their extravagant promises at the last election, but where there are clear differences. So a week ago, if we’d been discussing the campaign up to that point, I’m sure we’d have been discussing the contrast between ourselves and Labour on tax – where Labour want to put taxes up after stealth taxes have been loaded onto people in the last four years, and we want to show how we can cut taxes for savers and for pensioners. We returned to that yesterday, if you remember, on a family tax cut, and this morning, as you rightly said in your opening summary of today’s election, we have been talking about how we can boost the state pension, cut
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 131 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
taxes for pensioners and improve the circumstances for those who have to look after themselves when they’re elderly in residential homes or long-term care.
EM: Given the terrible state the country’s in, given the terrible proposals Labour are putting forward, why are they so far ahead? Have the polling questions been rigged?
AL: The point is, we are now seven days away from the point at which the public can give us their definitive view. . .
EM: Well, people are voting now of course, aren’t they?
AL: Well, of course, people have started voting, I met somebody yesterday when I was out canvassing who had cast their vote, so I suppose yes, there are being votes cast now, and then we will find out. It is frankly idle speculation now politicians to debate the polls, or indeed to debate the outcome of the election – it’s far more important to discuss the policies, that’s what we’ve been doing, Mr Blair we know, and his party are trying to run away from the policies, that’s the message of their poster yesterday, they won’t debate policy, they’d rather engage in attacks on personalities.
EM: Briefly, what would you say are the dangers of a Tory landslide.
AL: Well, I don’t myself see the danger in a landslide for the Conservative Party, so much as the need for a Conservative Government, and it’s one that won’t be arrogant as Labour have been. The main danger of Labour, of course, is their arrogance, and the way in which they have used their majority to undermine Parliament and to frustrated the will of minorities inside Parliament by using their majority.
EM: Thank you for taking the time to join us, we’re grateful to you, Conservative spokesman, Andrew Lansley. . This was a wide-ranging analysis of the Tory strategy on Europe and the Euro, in which Andrew Lansley was given the opportunity to address a number of claims that the focus on Europe was not working because it was not what voters wanted to hear. The set-up was angled at showing that the policy was missing the mark, or plain wrong. Evidence presented for this contention was the Guardian ICM poll which had shown that Europe and the Euro was low on the list of priorities, and that a number of senior Conservatives, including Lord Brittan (interviewed on PM the previous day) were at odds with the party line that the election was also perhaps the last chance to save the pound.
The aim was to go through a number of points of “evidence” showing that things were going wrong and then to get Andrew Lansley to respond, thereby giving him a chance to put the counter-case. But the set-up failed to address a number of important issues, and therefore was one-sided. It did not give listeners any indication of how important, for example Lord Britton’s dissent, was in the context of the party as a whole. It said that polls agreed with Stephen Dorrell in putting Europe low down on the list of voter priorities, but did not mention (for example) that other polls showed Europe was becoming more important to voters as the campaign went on, if only marginally so, or that more generally, voters favoured keeping the pound in line with what the Conservative policy was addressing.
Norman Smith did say William Hague dismissed the findings of opinion polls – but this was immediately juxtaposed with the defection of John Leigh, and the immediate observation of “wriggling” on the policy towards the referendum.
The interview that followed this slanted set-up was tough by any standards, and one of the toughest of anyone during the campaign. The questioning throughout aimed at establishing that the Tories had got the policies sand emphasis on Europe wrong. Andrew Lansley was given the space to answer, but the impact was to suggest that he had an awful lot of explaining to do on questions derived from the one- sided set-up. Two of the questions ‘what are the dangers of a Tory landslide?’ and ‘can you remember a better run campaign?’ were verging on the sarcastic in tone, an approach only very rarely adopted – usually only in the case of extremist parties.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 132 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
The 10pm news continued with the perceived shift in Tory policy, with headline that William Hague had admitted that it was not the last chance to save the pound. Like PM, it said that William Hague’s policy on the pound had come under pressure from all sides, including his own. These were said to include “two senior Tory back-benchers”, though only one, Ian Taylor, was mentioned by name. John
Tony Blair denies he’s complacent, but there’s no denying Labour’s confidence. As for Mr Hague, he’s refusing to buckle under pressure, and the signs are that Europe and the Euro will continue to run through the final stages of his campaign. That’s his decision; whatever happens to the Tories in this election, the buck stops with him.
This was followed by a look at the opinion polls by Peter Snow, in which he asserted that the most recent ones suggested that “the Conservative focus on Europe had little impact”. He concluded:
And why isn’t the Euro helping the Tories in the polls? Perhaps because most people say it’s not an important issue for them. And, look at this Telegraph asked people what they think about joining the Euro. 11% say Britain should join as soon as possible, 46% say Britain should probably join, but not yet. 20% say it would not be a good idea, and another 20% say ‘never’. Half, 40%, less than half, firmly against – that’s all. It’s by no means so clear cut as the usual ‘yes/no’ type polls have suggested.
Andrew Marr’s response to whether there would be a change in policy over the last week was:
No, not really. I think William Hague has tied the tiller as it were, and is pursuing the Euro campaign, you know, ‘it’s seven days to go to save the pound, five days to go, four days to go’. You can’t suddenly change direction when you’re doing that. And they cling on to the hope – which is a genuine belief – that the pound is more popular than the Conservative Party in the country at the moment. The odd thing is not that there’s been whispers of dissent tonight, the odd thing frankly is that the mood is so resolute and, at least outwardly, cheerful in the Conservative camp. And I think that’s because they believe that Tory England is still out there, it hasn’t died – it may have dies off in other parts of the country, mind you – but It’s still there in England; and there are a lot of people hiding behind their private hedges and net curtains who will come out and vote on the day. Nevertheless, these are very, very grim figures – and I think there will be a lot of heart searching in Central Office about their failure to go harder on issues like health and education earlier in the campaign.
The emphasis here was on showing that, in the face mounting evidence that they should not, the Conservatives were sticking to their focus on Europe – though they were changing their policies. John Pienaar’s analysis stressed that there were even Tories who did not support the emphasis on Europe policy, as well as the Liberal Democrats and the “not complacent” Tony Blair . The impression of wrong tactics was reinforced by John Snow’s heavy emphasis on the finding of one poll in the Daily Telegraph that suggested that opinion against the Euro might not be as strong as had been assumed. Andrew Marr made it clear that the Conservative camp continued to believe that their strategy was right, although claiming that there would now be heart searching “about failure” to go harder on issues like health. The implication – still a week before the election – was that the Tories had campaigned on the wrong issue, and were heading for a defeat on an area where even the polls about the Euro suggested that they did not have as much backing of the electorate as they had assumed. Of course the polls supported that contention. The question is whether the tone of imminent defeat - at this stage of the campaign – was right.
Newsnight also featured heavily that Tory policy on Europe had apparently changed, to the poll being the “last fair vote” on the Euro . But unlike the 10pm news, Martha Kearney said that the focus on Europe “might be having some effect”, as Labour canvass returns were showing that Europe was a “number one issue”. She said that Labour moaned about this, pointed out the same Gallup poll as Peter Snow, then emphasised: “it’s only one poll”. She said Labour would nonetheless draw comfort from it as evidence that they could win a referendum campaign. Jeremy Paxman asked if it was significant
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 133 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______because it was “tremendously different” from the normal ‘yes or no’ on the Euro”. Martha Kearney agreed.
Thus Martha Kearney, in sharp contrast to analysis throughout the day said that there was evidence from Labour that the Tory emphasis on Europe might be having some sort of effect. But even this was immediately countered with the evidence of the Gallup poll. Her emphasis then shifted to saying that here was evidence that the wish not to join the Euro was perhaps not as a strong as had previously been thought – and that Labour could win a referendum.
May 31 There was no mention in the bulletins of the election and Europe. But the programme features continued to ask why the Tory focus on Europe (as well as asylum, crime and tax) was not getting through to voters, according to the opinion polls.
Tim Franks’ analysis of strategy said that it had been set months in advance, with the four elements thought to be “the four horsemen who would weep into our political consciousness and scythe the
But there are also Tories who stare disbelievingly at their support suggested in the opinion polls, and wonder privately whether the asylum, crime, tax and Europe strategy could ever work on its own. If those polls don’t budge very soon, expect the murmurs of disquiet to grow.
John Humphrys put it to Theresa May, brought in to talk about education policies, that “during an election campaign you have t got to decide what are the big subjects “and you chose the wrong ones for May said that people were responding to the issues raised, including keeping the pound. John Humphrys asked if that was the case, ‘how come you are not denting their lead, even slightly?’ Ms May said that the only poll that counted was the one on June 7.
The item carried on with the narrow focus that the Tories had got their strategy wrong. It gave Ms May ample time to argue why this was not the case, but the choice of the subject seemed almost to imply that the result of the election was now a foregone conclusion. Ms May, as education spokesman, was given very little space to discuss her actual topic – or to establish whether the Tory policies were genuinely different from those of Labour.
John Humphrys returned to the topic of campaign focus in the election panel, asking Charles Moore if the Tories should have concentrated on public services. He responded that Mr Hague was quite right to go on the Euro “because they were not in a position to be convincing on public services”.
The overseas press review brought into play for the first time during the election campaign that in Ireland, there was also a vote on June 7th – a referendum on the approval of the Treaty of Nice. This was it in full:
Just as the people of the UK go to the polls, on June 7th, so too do citizens of the Irish republic. They’re being asked to vote in three referendums. One to remove all mention of the death penalty from the constitution; a second to allow Ireland to sign up to the international court; and more controversial, the third, on the Nice Treaty, which proposes changes in EU decision making in advance of enlargement. I say Nice is more controversial so you might think there’s more coverage of this, and indeed the other referendum campaigns than, for example, the British election. Wrong. Today, the Irish Independent, Ireland’s biggest selling newspaper has no mention of Nice, nor the tabloid The Star. The Irish Examiner covers the issue on page 16, while the Irish Times starts its coverage on page 10. Europe clearly isn’t that interesting to Irish readers – a point taken up by the Irish Times foreign affairs correspondent Deglan Debradoon. He rights that this referendum has been notable for two things: firstly the near monolithic support of the political establishment for a ‘yes’ vote, and secondly, the relatively low level of activity on the ground in support of that ‘yes’ vote. Europe, he says, seems to be the new Prozac. A little more stimulating for the Irish papers is the UK – although the widely expected Labour win robs the contest of any drama for them.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 134 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
This was the first mention on the Today programme (during the election campaign) of the Irish referendum, and it presented the issue as though it was unimportant and a complete turn off to voters. That may have been the case in newspaper coverage terms, but it is striking that this issue had not been discussed in any further depth, particularly as one of Mr Hague’s own declared aims was renegotiation of the Nice Treaty. At the very least, it would have been interesting editorially to explore why Ireland was having a referendum on this issue, when in the UK it was being left to the government to decide.
In the business news, Mary Garn discussed claims that experts at Deutschebank were saying that there was only a one in ten chance of Britain being able to join the Euro during the next Parliament because of the high exchange rate of the pound. It also mentioned that the governor of the Bank of England had said that there was no point in rushing to bring down the value of the pound .
The item shed fascinating light on the problems of entering the Euro, and explained the complexities of trying to match the exchange rate to an appropriate level of entry. There was no attempt by Mary Garn to introduce a Euro-sceptic perspective into the discussion, by for example asking if this bore out what the Tories feared about the Euro and the pressures that entry would bring to bear on the pound. The exchange was instead geared towards exploring what impact the forecast would have on the practicality of holding a referendum, with the main point established that Mr Blair could probably bring the exchange rate down gradually after a referendum had been held. This was a topic central to the Tory fears about the Euro. It was not included in the main area of the programme, and not discussed from a political perspective.
On PM, Clare English continued the theme of the “failure” of the Tory’s attack plans, went for tax, they went on the Euro – they failed. Labour still seems to be out there where it was at the beginning of the campaign”. Andrew Marr continued:
Even at this stage, this is an argument not yet resolved inside the Conservative Party. There are plenty of critics of what William Hague has been doing; there’s plenty of people saying, behind their hands, we should be going on health and education day after day, this concentration on the Euro is simply not working. Mr Hague and the people around him are utterly unmoved by this, they are steely in their determination to carry on with their x-number of days to save the pound theme – it’s what he was talking about again in meetings I’ve been at with him today, and I think again the reason is that he feels that there is underlying movement that people are starting to hear his message about the pound, and that if he goes down, at least he goes down on the issue that matters most to him – and he would argue, to the country.
This was a strong intro: that Tory strategy had – quite simply – “failed”. Andrew Marr’s commentary balanced this to some extent by noting Mr Hague’s steely determination and conviction that he was right. But he also brought in that people were saying behind their hands that the emphasis on the Euro was not working – and again, the emphasis was on Tory problems, now to the point that a week before the election “they had failed”, and that there was an argument ‘not yet resolved’ within the party. He did not attempt to clarify how many his ‘many’ was, or how big the argument was.
Newsnight focused in its review of the following day’s newspaper headlines on an Independent story which claimed that Kenneth Clarke, behind closed doors, had departed from the Tory line on whether the election was a referendum on Europe. Martha Kearney reinforced it be adding that “behind the scenes we know that pro-Europeans have been very unhappy…I’ve been talking to them throughout the campaign and they are very unhappy about the focus…on save the pound”. As with Andrew Marr, she did not say what number of those pro-Europeans there were.
Jeremy Paxman then turned to the Guardian:
The Guardian ‘Tories, the cracks begin to show’ – this is actually jumping forward to just after the election isn’t it?
MK: Exactly, and it says ‘Angry Patten to launch attack on strategy hours after the election results’ – he’s booked himself in for a series of interviews. And again, this is off
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 135 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
the record, a number of people say on the phone, ‘Oh, I can’t talk to you, call me on June 8th, call me on June 8th. So I think they’re very keen not to get any blame for divisions or whatever during the campaign itself, if indeed there is a Conservative defeat.
This set the seal on a day in which editorially, the relentless focus of the BBC editorial approach had been to seek evidence that the Tory strategy on Europe was not only not working, but was also leading to divisions and now – already – recriminations. As in most consideration of the Tory stance on Europe, there was no real effort to put the import of the Kenneth Clarke story, or the intentions of Mr Patten into any sort of context.
June 1 Today’s bulletins, though mainly focused on Lady Thatcher’s warning of an election landslide, continued to mention Tory problems, this time, in a voice piece by Jonathan Beale that Kenneth Clarke had told a meeting in his constituency that “there wasn’t anyone in Western Europe who wanted a superstate – a view clearly not shared by the Tory leadership”. Mr Beale alleged that there were “indications that pro-Europeans in the party have felt uncomfortable with the emphasis so far”.
As the night before, there was no effort to put this into context, to say why Kenneth Clarke’s views were so important that they merited such headline treatment, or to indicate whether this was an important split, numerically or otherwise.
The selection in newspaper review continued on the theme of Tory problems:
Both the Guardian and the Independent lead with stories about two pro-European Conservatives. According to the Guardian, the former Party Chairman, Chris Patten is preparing to launch an attack on William Hague’s leadership, if Labour wins a landslide next Thursday. It says cracks in the Tory Party’s discipline have begun to emerge on both wings. The Independent has obtained a tape of Kenneth Clarke in which he criticises Mr Hague’s attempt to turn the election into a referendum on the Single Currency. The former Chancellor told a constituency debate that. ‘John Major said the Single Currency should be determined by a referendum, and the General Election should focus on issues such as the economy, health and education.’ . And when John Humphrys opened a piece with Tim Franks, he first observed that “there was more trouble for the Conservatives on Europe”, and that, according to the Guardian “the cracks are beginning
Well, we had Stephen Dorrell on the programme a few days ago, Tuesday, where he was saying that Europe threatened to overshadow the other issues that the Tories should be campaigning on. Yesterday, Nick St Aubyn, who’s an education specialist, as well as a Parliament ary aide to Michael Portillo, said that education policies ought to be shouted from the hilltops, and perhaps that message wasn’t getting through as clearly as it could do to voters on the doorsteps, who were saying that education was one of their top priorities. And now, according to the Independent, there’s been a tape of a meeting that Ken Clarke gave, it was a meeting with other candidates in his Nottingham constituency, in which he pointed out that the referendum was the best way to sort out what should happen on a single currency, and you shouldn’t confuse that with a General Election.
JH: I think we sort of knew that didn’t we?
TF: Well, we did indeed, but up to now he’s been very careful not to stir the pot. He’s been saying that he’s not going to be saying anything until well after the election – and indeed, most of the other pro-European Tories have been saying exactly that. Partly because they don’t want to be accused of disloyalty, and partly, privately, they want any blame for how the election goes - and most of them are fairly pessimistic about the election - to be heaped in one direction.
JH: And what about Chris Patten ?
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 136 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
TF: Well, Chris Patten, again, we’re also told, the European Commissioner and former Chairman of the Conservative Party, and of course very pro-European, we’re also told that he will be speaking after the election as well – up to now, he’s been taking a monastic oath of silence.
JH: Hmm, and what’s he going to say? I suppose he’s going to say, if It goes badly. ‘It’s all your fault Mr Hague’ – is that the idea?
TF: Well, that’s what the suspicion is. And indeed, rather surprisingly yesterday, William Hague broke the vow of silence, as far as opinion polls are concerned for politicians, in that he started talking about them, at least indirectly, because he warned of the dangers of a landslide for Labour, he said that it would be extremely dangerous, he said that Labour had already downgraded democracy in the lifetime of the last Parliament with their big landslide, and he was supported by Lady Thatcher writing in the Telegraph talking about an elective dictatorship.
Tim Franks argued that the evidence of the Kenneth Clarke speech, combined with the Stephen Dorrell remarks of days previously, plus the possible intentions of Chris Patten suggested that the Conservative policies on were beginning to crack, with Europhiles only just clinging to a “monastic vow of silence”. As earlier, these claims could have been put into context more. There was no explanation of how strong a crack this was, or estimate of how many MPs might be involved. As a result, the clear implication to be drawn from the piece was that this was a serious problem for the party.
The programme also carried an interview with Anna Lindh, the Swedish foreign secretary, in London to address the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs. She said that she favoured gradual expansion of Europe and definitely not a United States of Europe. Ms Lindh added that the debate in the UK over the Euro reminded her of that in Sweden, and implied that she believed that joining the currency could be beneficial.
There was a brief mention on PM of whether the Euro debate carried “any resonance over the border” in Scotland.
June 2 Sue MacGregor, opening an interview with Michael Howard, continued to explore the Tory problems over Europe. She observed:
Enter any Conservative campaigning group around the country, I’ve been to one or two of them this week in the battle bus, and you’ll see a plethora of pound signs on lapels, and posters – they remind us of a big plank in William Hague’s election strategy. But there may be a growing backlash among senior Conservatives. It was claimed yesterday that the European Commissioner, Chris Patten, will lay into Mr Hague’s European policies straight after the election. Well, we have another former senior Tory with us here in Dover this morning: Michael Howard, once Home Secretary, then Shadow Foreign Affairs Spokesman, ‘til he left the front bench, he’s campaigning in the constituency of Folkestone, just seven miles away from here. Mr Howard, this business of a possible Labour landslide, we read about it again The Times this morning, and Lady Thatcher’s had her view, ‘The New Labour landslide if it happens next week would create an elective dictatorship.’ There is effectively a sort of concession among Tories
MICHAEL HOWARD: Well, I don’t think it is, and I don’t think anybody should start making assumptions about what’s going to happen next Thursday…opinion polls have been proved extremely wrong.
Sue MacGregor added:
What about the strategy, fighting to win for the Tories, all this emphasis William Hague has put on the pound. Does it now look a rather misguided emphasis?
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 137 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
MH: I don’t think you can possibly tell. We haven’t, as I say, seen the results of the election.
SM: (interrupting) But all the polls indicate a very big Labour win.
MH: The polls, as I say, have been wrong before. But I think William Hague was absolutely right to draw attention to the dangers which we face on this issue. It’s part of political leadership to alert the country you seek to lead to the dangers it might face. And a number of great leaders have done that in the past, they haven’t always done it by consulting focus groups, or even by paying attention to the polls, sometimes it’s not been a popular thing to do. But it is an element of political leadership, and I think that William Hague has been quite right to draw attention to this extremely important issue which is so vital for the future of our country.
SM: Is it going to be a big one for the Tories after the election?
MH: I have no idea what will happen after the election, I don’t think anybody should be thinking about what will happen after the election, I think everybody should be concentrating on the next five days, and making sure that we absolutely maximise the Conservative vote.
Miss Macgregor concluded by asking Mr Howard if he wanted to return to the front benches. He said he did not.
This interview was predicated on two assumptions – that there was evidence (from statements Chris Patten might make) of a backlash within Tory ranks against the concentration on the pound; and that the opinion polls supported the contention that the policy was not working. As before the problems were not put into any sort of overall context, though the impression given was that because these were “senior Tories”, they were important. In this piece – unlike the previous day in the commentary by BBC correspondents - Michael Howard was given the space to rebut the allegations - and to explain why the ‘save the pound’ campaign was important, but it was clear by now that the agenda of questioning was firmly fixed on these issues.
At 8.16, Sue MacGregor introduced an item that aimed to explore why a number of French companies were setting up business in Kent. She interviewed David McDonald from Free French Enterprise; and Frederick Lafrostier, owner of an oil company, Servicing Enterprise. They mentioned the benefits for French companies trading in this part of the UK – including location, lower taxes and national insurance, before this question:
SUE MACGREGOR: But what about the Euro – is this a factor, Britain not being a member of the Single Currency? I mean do people find that this doesn’t make any difference, would there be more if we were?
DAVID MCDONALD: I think in the medium term, certainly, those people who’ve already come for the reasons that have already come for the reasons that have been described, complain – but not terribly bitterly – that the UK’s not going to be part of the Euro. But I think there’s a danger in the medium-term if it doesn’t happen, then UK based business may find itself excluded from European commerce.
SM: But the loss of sovereignty argument is a pretty powerful one still, I mean, just look at any of the polls.
DM: I’m not quite convinced about that, because currency zones exist elsewhere in the world, particularly in America, South America, the dollar is becoming the currency of some nations who’ve abandoned their own currency. I haven’t heard about South American countries taking on US tax rates, for example.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 138 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Mr McDonald expressed a straightforward view in favour of the UK joining the Euro. Sue MacGregor put it to him that the polls did not support the loss of sovereignty that would follow Euro entry, but he disagreed, with an argument not commonly used, that the currency zoning in South America had not led to loss of sovereignty there. Ms MacGregor chose not to challenge him on this, and moved on to other aspects of the issue.
June 4 At 8.10, James Naughtie reported from Edgbaston. He explained that it was an important seat, once held by the Tories, but Labour since 1997, and which was being hotly contested. He asserted: “…a pretty lively encounter…on the Conservative side, for example, there’s even an internal challenge from a pro-Euro Conservative candidate, Collis Gretton:
Europe is a defining issue today, and the one that has caused the Party so much difficulty. But the Party’s anti-Europeanism reflects a wider malaise, for example, the position on asylum seekers, or on swingeing, unaffordable tax cuts. We want to return to moderate, mainstream policies.
There was no further mention of Europe, or of the Conservatives and Europe; again it drew attention to Tory divisions.
Later in the programme, on the election panel, Michael Dobbs observed that he believed that the Tories had set the agenda “more effectively than the other party”.
John Humphrys responded:
Did they really set the agenda? I mean, they made a dreadful porridge of Europe, didn’t they? Of the Euro?
MD: Well, they wanted to talk about Europe, and I think they wanted to expose what they thought were the weaknesses in the Labour Party campaign.
JH: But saying this was the last chance to save the Euro (sic)
MD: Well, it’s an extraordinary situation, where you have all the opinion polls saying that people don’t want the Euro, and you have the same number of people saying it’s inevitable – it’s a pretty sour reflection of our sort of democracy, if people don’t want something, but they feel they’re going to have it thrust down their throats.
LISA JARDINE: (laughing) I just love this! Don’t you love this?! Matthew and Michael are both saying, ‘well, the campaigns fine, the policy points are fine, just nobody wants to vote for them (laughing).
MD: I think you’re listening to a different conversation Lisa.
John Humphrys continued on the line that it had been a mistake to campaign so much on Europe and to claim that the election was a referendum on the Euro. Michael Dobbs responded robustly – but the allegation was again made. Of course, Mr Humphrys was playing devil’s advocate – but by now the editorial thrust on Europe was entirely on Tory splits – and here, again
As with Today, references to Europe on PM were sparse. This came as the main item of the day’s election news:
CLARE ENGLISH: Like Mr Blair, William Hague is trying hard to ignore the polls, he insists his party can still win the General Election. To that end, he painted a vision of what his party might do in its first fortnight in power – promising twenty immediate reforms and a tough stance on Europe.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 139 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
WILLIAM HAGUE: On Friday 15th June, Francis Maude and I would travel to the EU Summit in Gothenburg with a mandate to begin a crusade for genuine reform of the EU. And over the coming four days, we will spare no effort, hour or breath so that on Friday, you will be surprised and we will be busy.
This was a straightforward report of a Tory soundbite on European policy. Later in the programme, a report on the same Conservative plans, also included news that Anthony Nelson, said to have served in John Major’s government, had switched parties “largely because of his support for the Euro”.
This was another mention of problems over their European policy for the Tories.
On the 10pm news, Gavin Hewitt joined the campaign trail with William Hague. This was angled with one main objective: to say that there was growing dissension within the Conservative party about the focus on Europe. The one question posed by Mr Hewitt to Mr Hague – a heads you win, tails you lose type - was designed to underline the point, even though there was no indication of what Mr Hague had gone on to say after his initial, heavily edited, response. This was a narrow report, which gave no indication how important or otherwise the alleged doubts were.
Jeremy Paxman interviewed the prime minister on Newsnight. This was the sequence on Europe. It was roughly half the length of the corresponding sequence on Europe in the counterpart William Hague interview:
All right. Let's talk about the Euro. Famously, there are five tests, which have to be met before we can join the Euro. Gordon Brown has said the Treasury will be the custodians of those tests. Can you overrule the Treasury?
TB: You wouldn't overrule them, it would be a collective decision of government.
JP: But the Treasury are the custodians of the test?
TB: Of course they are, cos they're the Treasury.
JP: So Gordon Brown decides when they would be met?
TB: No, the Treasury. When they say they're the custodian of the test, obviously as the Treasury, they are going to decide - are those tests in a technical sense met, and the collective decision of the government will be whether they are met or not.
JP: So Gordon Brown decides whether we have a referendum or not?
TB: No, Gordon Brown doesn't. Again, I have been over this. The whole of the government takes a collective decision. When we say the Treasury.
JP: The Treasury decides whether the tests are met?
TB: The Treasury are the custodians of the tests and it's obvious why they should be. In circumstances where there are economic conditions and economic tests, it's right that we make it clear to people that there is not going to be any political fiddling about with these tests, they have to be met in a genuine economic way.
JP: And Gordon Brown is the man who will make that judgement?
TB: The judgement is made by the government as a whole but of course Gordon will make the judgement with me and make it on the basis of the government as a whole.
JP: A re we to take it that the agriculture secretary, the culture secretary and so on will have a view on whether these tests have been met?
TB: No. What it means is what it says. The Treasury are the custodians of the tests and that is to make it clear to people that these are not going to be politically interfered with. They have to be economically sound. But the decision as to whether to recommend
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 140 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
entry into the Euro has obviously got to be taken by the Government as a whole. I was asked this question a couple of weeks ago - are you going to be involved? Well, of course.
JP: But essentially you are rubber stamping Gordon Brown's decision?
TB: No. I am not saying that and neither is he.
JP: But he decides whether the tests have been met or not?
TB: The Treasury, because they are economic tests, the Treasury are the custodians of these tests, obviously, to make sure that it's not simply done on a political basis but is a genuine economic decision. The decision then, the judgement as to whether we recommend entry into the Euro, is taken by the government as a whole. Gordon, who has been a brilliant Chancellor, I have no doubt at all, will make sure those tests are properly adhered to.
JP: You will rubberstamp it then?
TB: I haven't said that, Jeremy.
JP: This takes us to the whole question of your judgement, Prime Minister.
TB: I have not made that judgement yet. JP: You haven't made that judgment and clearly you will exercise your judgment on that. Let's take a couple of examples of your judgment. Keith Vaz shouldn't be sacked from his job because he hasn't been guilty of anything. Why did you sack Peter Mandelson?
This brief, narrowly focused exchange was aimed at establishing that the real decision on the Euro – whether the five economic tests had been met – would be taken by the chancellor, rather than the prime minister. Mr Paxman was hoping, perhaps, to show that there was division between Mr Brown and Mr Blair on the Euro and the five tests. The same question was posed five different times and it revealed nothing new, only that the five tests would be applied by the treasury then a collective decision made. Given the range of questions that could have been asked about Europe, the information it provided was very limited. In marked contrast to the treatment with Mr Hague, and there was no real assumption within the approach adopted by Mr Paxman of any major problem for the Labour party.
June 5 In Today’s bulletins, it was mentioned prominently that at a meeting of Ecofin, Mr Brown would resist calls for tax harmonisation.
The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, will tell his fellow European Finance Ministers in Luxembourg this morning that Britain will resist an attempt to harmonise energy taxes across Europe. The European Commission insists such a tax is necessary to persuade businesses to cut their use of power. From Luxembourg, here’s our Europe business correspondent, Jonathan Charles.
JONATHAN CHARLES: The Chancellor intend telling the Luxembourg meeting he’ll be putting Britain’s interests first. Gordon Brown will argue there’s no possibility of his agreeing that the European Union should have more power to set levels of tax. With an election just two days away, Mr Brown knows he has no alternative but to take a tough line, any sign of weakness would be seized upon by the Conservative Party which claims frequently that Labour won’t stand up for Britain’s interests in Europe. The Finance Ministers will debate a proposal that the EU should harmonise taxes on the energy that businesses use. The European Commission wants a minimum Europe-wide level of tax on fuels, as part of an energy saving plan. Although the European Commission is now more pragmatic about the opposition to tax harmonisation in general, it still wants to press on with some specific measures. There’s plenty of scope for further clashes with Britain during the months ahead.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 141 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
This was a report that, in an election period where Europe was the key issue, came close to pushing the Labour party line rather than objective reporting. At the time of reporting, Gordon Brown’s actual actions were not known by Jonathan Charles. He was presumably relying for his information on what the Labour party had told him. His reporting could easily have made this clear, for example at 6am by saying that “Gordon Brown’s spokesman says he will…”. As it was, it sounded as if the Labour party was definitely making a stand, was acting totally positively. This was a sensitive area. The bulletin line could therefore have included words to the effect that the Conservatives were worried about the issue and Labour’s approach to it.
The later voice piece did mention the Tories’ worries. But again, Mr Charles assumed that Mr Brown would definitely carry out what he said it would.
The 6am bulletin was followed by an interview with Jonathan Charles by Sarah Montague on this topic. She asked him first what the European ministers would be discussing. He replied that one of the agenda items would be a pan-European tax on business and energy. He said:
The European Commission is quite keen on this, it believes it is important to have an energy saving plan in order to make businesses think more carefully on how they use fuels – and one way to do that is to make sure you have a minimum Europe-wide tax. The Germans are also very keen on this, but Britain is not so keen, Gordon Brown will make it clear that he still believes all taxes should be set in the United Kingdom and not in Brussels.
Sarah Montague then asked about withholding tax, on which she said “Britain had declared victory before”. He replied:
Well, basically, what’s happened with this is that countries now have a choice – if they want to have a Withholding Tax they can do, or they can swap information between tax authorities as to who paid what tax where. So if you’re a German, for example, trying to avoid tax by putting your money in London, the British authorities will tell the German authorities whether you’ve paid tax or not. But it’s still on the agenda, and the European Commission is involved in another dispute with Britain over this, because before it properly implemented this Withholding Tax - which would mean everyone would have to pay a minimum tax on savings - they have to have discussions with other areas outside the European Union, places which are in effect tax havens, places like Switzerland. Now the European Commission says it wants to negotiate with these countries, Britain says it doesn’t believe the Commission should negotiate, that it should be national governments including the United Kingdom who negotiate – so plenty of scope for clashes today.
SM: Is there going to be pressure for harmonising other taxes?
JC: Well, the European Commission as a rule is trying to move away from the idea of general harmonisation of taxes – it recognises there’s an awful lot of opposition to this in some countries, including of course, the United Kingdom: they’ve been left in no doubt of that by Mr Brown over the last few months. But on the other hand, there are still specific measures, like the energy tax, where it does want to harmonise, and it intends pressing ahead. And whichever Government is formed after Thursday’s General Election in Britain, there’s no doubt that there are going to be clashes on this over the years ahead.
This was one of the few items during the campaign about the business of the EU. Jonathan again asserted that Mr Brown would “make it clear that he still believes all taxes should be set in the UK and not in Brussels”. Over the withholding tax, there was little element of surprise in Sarah Montague’s question. Given that Labour had claimed “victory” over this issue at the Feira summit, this could perhaps been more probing. The issue at stake was made clear by Jonathan Charles, but this was presented in a low key way. In his final answer he appeared to say on the one hand that the commission recognised that harmonisation was opposed but on the other, that it still wanted to attain it.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 142 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Time was of a premium, but given the emotiveness of the issues involved – and their direct relevance to the views of the political party – it would have been better to have heard these key arguments rehearsed directly by the politicians. The issue of integration, and what it meant on a practical sense – one of the key dividers between Labour and the Conservatives, had scarcely been aired during the campaign . This was an opportunity to do so that was missed
The newspaper review mentioned two European-linked stories – that the Sun had condemned as “disgraceful” and opportunistic the defection to Labour of the former Tory minister Anthony Nelson; and that the Financial Times reported that Europol was worried that the issuing of high denomination Euro notes could lead to an escalation of fraud.
Commentary: The defection of Anthony Nelson had been reported by PM the previous day as if it was a problem for the Conservatives. Clare English had said: “William Hague’s uphill battle to prove the polls wrong wasn’t helped today when it was announced that a former Conservative minister had defected to Labour. Anthony Nelson said he had switched parties largely because of his support for the Euro”. Given the difference in opinion over the defection – as here indicated by the Sun – that intro, the headline news about the election on PM that day, looked somewhat one-sided. The assumption was that the defection of Mr Nelson was not a good thing for the Tories. The actual position allowed for more than one interpretation, which wasn’t given at the time.
John Humphrys discussed with Peter Stothard, editor of the Times, why he had carried an editorial advising people to vote Labour for the first time in the newspaper’s history. He said a central point was the Labour had been a much better government than he’d expected it to be. This was an important story, and John Humphrys explored the European dimension of the decision in some depth, allowing Peter Stothard to explain why he did not think Labour would take the UK into the Single Currency.
Norman Smith reported for PM about the latest developments on campaigning by Lady Thatcher. This was the introduction:
The political parties have been reinforcing their campaign messages in the final days of electioneering. Tony Blair has stressed the importance of strong economy to pay for good schools and hospitals; the Liberal Democrats have concentrated on their plans for improving the NHS. But the Conservatives have accused Labour of wanting to spend taxpayers money, faster than they earn it. Also out on the campaign trail again, Lady Thatcher – but if she’s seen as a warhorse by the Tories, she’s a sitting duck for Labour. Speaking in Yardley, Tony Blair was keen to mark her out as a shadow hanging over the Tories: an unwelcome throwback to an era that had, he said, left so many behind. This election, he said, represented a chance for Britain to signal a clean break with the Thatcher years.
There followed a quote from Mr Blair in which he claimed the party had moved beyond Thatcherism and to realise what had been wrong with that time – “economic instability, gross under-investment in public services, social division and an attitude towards Europe that has no relevance to the modern world in which we live (sic)”.
Norman Smith opened his sequence about the Thatcher campaigning as follows:
Love her or hate her, Lady Thatcher still draws the crowds. Crushed and mobbed, one admirer bobbed up and down before her, and kissed her hand. A Staffordshire Bull Terrier with a Union Jack coat shrank away before her, and a confused woman began shouting, ‘It’s the Queen! It’s the Queen!’. As for we journalists who huddled around her, we were swatted aside with disdain and a good bit of finger prodding. Here, one of my colleagues asking whether Mr Hague’s Conservatism wasn’t just reheated Thatcherism:
LADY THATCHER: What do you mean just reheated? What do you mean just? Thatcherism is what put Britain on its feet again.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 143 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
NS: Pressed on Mr Hague’s prospects after Thursday, Lady Thatcher wouldn’t be drawn. ‘He’s fought an excellent campaign,’ she said. But on Europe there was no such reticence – her views as unflinching as ever.
LT: The idea that we should give up our currency for one in Europe is to me utterly repugnant. If you give up your currency, you give up control over your future. Labour may do that, but we will never do it.
NS: But though local Tories were clearly delighted with Lady Thatcher’s visit, away from the cut and thrust of marginal seats, some senior Conservatives privately questioned the wisdom of allowing Lady Thatcher such a cameo role in this election. Yes, she delights the party faithful, but among waverers and younger voters, the fear is she has the opposite effect.
Again, a line that said that senior Conservatives were questioning the wisdom of election strategy – this time by allowing Lady Thatcher to become involved. Nothing wrong with reporting that, but these were becoming the only issues reported mentioned about the Conservatives and Europe. By contrast, in this report, there was nothing at all that suggested criticism of Labour – only a soundbite that said the Thatcher years had been damaging. Norman Smith’s treatment of Mrs Thatcher herself, in introducing the dog, and the confusion of her with the queen could also be seen to be tongue-in-cheek – as if she were a liability. He reported her strong words about the belief in sterling, and the remarks that followed in the interview with Stuart Wheeler to some extent balanced the negative tone.
Eddie Mair moved from this to ask Stuart Wheeler, said to be the main donor to the Conservative party, whether he thought he was getting value for money.
Do you think the focus of the campaign has been right? People seem to know the Tories want to keep the pound, for the next Parliament at least, but all the polling suggests – several polls have suggested this – that Europe and the Euro is low on the list of voter concerns.
SW: Yes, but I’ve seen more recently that it may be higher than people think. But in any case it is an issue on which, I think it’s 73% of the people are with the Tory position, i.e. keep the pound; and also looking at it from another point of view, it is absolutely critical to the country, so I think he is absolutely right to put that to the front. But there are other things, in going on about tax, whatever the Liberal Democrats think, I do believe that most people prefer lower taxes to higher taxes, and I think Mr Hague’s quite right to make that point, and then crime and asylum and so on. Here at last was a view that explained what the Tory approach to the pound was, and gave some explanation of what the policy was based upon.
In the 10pm news, Andrew Marr summarised the choice facing voters on Europe as follows:
But I think even beyond that, there is a choice about Europe. If Labour are re-elected on Thursday, then in four or five year’s time, we will be a European country in terms of our public spending, and our embedded-ness in the European Union, and it will be very difficult to turn again from that. If we go for the Conservatives then we will find that we have turned away from European social democratic model, and gone more for the American model. This is a very, very big choice, you know we’ve been standing here making jokes and talking about this campaign for a long time, but in the end, the choice we’re going to make this week is going to affect the kind of country we live in for a very long time to come.
This was a very clear assessment, devoid of anything other than the basic facts. By contrast, the closing sequence on Newsnight, discussing the following days’ newspaper headlines focused again on the difficulties facing the Tories:
This was the sequence:
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 144 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
JEREMY PAXMAN: Evan, the Independent?
EVAN DAVIS: Yes, ‘Blair sets date for Euro campaign’. It’s essentially arguing that the date that Blair is going to come out and come off the fence on the Euro is 10th September this year, he’s going to speak at the TUC, and then have a referendum in September 2002 – even though the Chancellor would like one a little bit later. Great deal of precision in the Independent’s analysis, and of course, it is something of a dilemma because they know they can’t go too quickly after the election, they can’t look too keen straight after the election on Friday morning, but if they wait too long, then there’ll be in that sort of mid-term blues period.
JP: You got anything on that Martha?
MARTHA KEARNEY: Yes, I think that certainly Tony Blair himself I think does seem quite keen to get campaigning on Europe – you can tell by the kind of speeches he’s been making during the campaign.
JP: It’s all predicated on them winning of course, which is still an assumption yet.
ED: There has been, I think, a change. I mean, I think it is a feeling that the Euro is looking slightly more credible at the end of this election campaign than maybe it did before – and that is primarily because if the Tories go down in a heavy defeat, that is a defeat in this great referendum that William Hague says is this election is, on the Euro.
Jeremy Paxman did point out that the discussion was predicated on Labour winning, but the choice of headlines and commentary by both Evan Davies and Martha Kearney was dealing with issues that would only come about if Labour won. As such, this had a foregone conclusion dimension to it – and particularly in the choice of the Independent headline, which was a highly speculative story.
June 6 The ‘foregone conclusion’ approach continued on Today, with Nigel Cassidy’s intro to business news:
The Single Currency hasn’t proved to be the hot election issue that the Conservatives wanted it to be – it’s certainly remained a prime concern on the financial markets, the Euro languishing at just above its lowest level against both the dollar and the pound. The European Central Bank meets on Thursday. In the meantime, tomorrow of course, the fate of the Single Currency remains in the hands of all those highly paid currency traders. And, as Mary Garn now reports from the Square Mile, they can’t seem to find any reasons to do much with the Euro at all.
The assertion that the Single Currency had not proved a hot election issue was as sweeping as it was questionable. It was not clear from which perspective Mr Cassidy was speaking, but it sounded partisan. That aside, e purpose of the piece as a whole seemed to be to suggest that the Euro was a sick currency that was likely to drift lower during the course of the day, and against continuing economic data. Mary Garn concluded:
And if Labour win tomorrow’s General Election, the markets will be looking to the new Government to give a signal about when we can expect a Euro referendum. Chief UK Economist (of Deutschebank), Kieran Barr:
KB: I think we’ll see Tony Blair adopt a very pro-EMU stance. I think he needs to convince a sceptical electorate of the benefits of joining EMU, and I think that process will begin pretty quickly after the election. Certainly, the foreign exchange market does not believe that we’re actually going to join the Euro any time soon, but I think it might need to reassess that view quickly after the General Election.
Again, before the polling booths had opened, the editorial thrust appeared to be anticipation of a Labour victory.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 145 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
This theme continued later, in a consideration of when a Euro referendum might take place:
SARAH MONTAGUE: Are you heaving a sigh of relief that it’s almost all over? Well, don’t heave that sigh too early. Almost as soon as the election results are declared on Friday, the next campaign begins. It’s the battle over the Euro. And as Andrew Gilligan reports, we might be facing a referendum on the subject rather sooner than we think.
What followed was predicated to a large extent on Labour winning – and Andrew Gilligan said that the Today programme already had guests booked on Friday’s Today to discuss the issue of when the referendum would be held. The whole exercise was couched in theoretical terms – but this did not lessen the impression of a Tory defeat. The item explored in close detail the practicalities of holding the referendum in terms of time scale and logistics, and on this front, it was an interesting contribution. After the report from Mr Gilligan, Sir Stanley Kalms, interviewed by Sarah Montague, was able to put across the key arguments why Euro entry was not – to him – a good idea. Sarah Montague again used the ICM poll, which suggested that the Euro was low on the list of voters’ priorities, to suggest that there was little strength of feeling behind opposition to the Euro.
On balance, the set-up and inclusion of this item – assuming as it did, Tory defeat - was a questionable editorial judgement the day before an election, the outcome of which was not yet known. It seemed to suggest that the Tory defeat was inevitable – and that what counted was what happened next. Sir Stanley Kalms clearly put the Euro-sceptic viewpoint – but this was distinct from the fate of the Tories.
A feature about the Sun recommending people to vote Labour, explored why editor David Yelland was against the Labour line on the Euro, and would remain opposed to entry to the Single Currency.
There was also an item about the referendum in Ireland on the Nice Treaty, the first time that this had been explored in any depth as a programme interview feature, despite its relevance to the UK.
On PM, during a discussion of how the campaign had gone for the Conservatives, Gito Hari made this assessment:
Well, I spoke to one of their key advisors last night, who was actually putting it in layman’s terms if you like, and he was saying they’ve had a good campaign because people now know who William Hague is, they know what he stands for. And put crudely, in almost sort of London cabby’s kind of language, he wants to save the pound, cut taxes, kick out asylum seekers and bang up criminals. That is something they’re quite convinced they’ve got across – whether of course that kind of agenda has a broad enough appeal is the tough call for them. So obviously, a bit too late to keep going on about it or broaden it, but they are quite confident that those key things which they wanted to talk about, they’ve managed to do so.
The programme also contained brief mention that Business for Sterling, the pressure group campaigning for retention of the pound, had been unhappy with the Conservative campaign. This is the text:
EDDIE MAIR: The anti-Euro campaign group, Business for Sterling has dipped its oar into the campaign, despite having said earlier on that it would take no part in proceedings. Its campaign director, Dominic Cummings, does not agree with Mr Hague on whether tomorrow’s vote is a referendum on the Single Currency.
DOMINIC CUMMINGS: This election’s not a referendum on the Euro. Tony Blair said so, we’ve said so, the public know it’s true. The British people, and British business long ago decided that they would not cast their vote on the basis of hostility to the Euro, and the election has not changed their minds. The British people are quite right. The real battle about whether or not we replace the pound starts at 10 o’clock on Thursday night. Two thirds of the British people and business support our ‘Europe yes, .
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 146 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
This focused on that, even in groups who supported some of the Conservatives’ Euro-sceptic aims, the focus on the pound was not supported.
In the 10pm news, during an item in the fall in the value of the pound against the dollar, Peter Sissons said it had come “amid speculation that if Labour is re-elected, Britain could start campaigning for
Andrew Marr reported on William Hague’s campaigning, noting that for breakfast, he’d asked for a .Mr Hague is not a man who willingly chooses the continental option”. He added: “ And they’ve been marching in this campaign to save the pound – despite the critics, still for Mr Hague what matters most”. There followed a soundbite from Mr Hague in Winchester, saying that it was there that the pound was minted for a very long time; “These people who you see with Labour posters want to destroy the independence of our country”.
This was a short finale in the coverage of the election. It re-emphasised that for the Conservatives, the pound was the central issue of the campaign. In contrast, Charles Kennedy was included with the following:
This election isn’t a referendum on Europe or the Euro, it’s not about some of the outrageous claims and counter-claims the other two have been making. This is about a chance for the public to record their view about the quality of our public services in this country.
Mr Hague had said frequently that a number of issues were important. On this, the last day of the campaign, there was mention – from Michael Portillo – that he used to believe, but now saw it did not work, that high taxation and high public spending was socially responsible. But the impression left by Andrew Marr was on the pound.
Laura Trevelyan’s report on the final day’s campaigning included the following extracts:
LAURA TREVELYAN: The campaign may be unspun, but there’s more than a touch of the Groundhog Day about it. William Hague comes to a market square – in this case word unclear) speech.
Montage:
WILLIAM HAGUE: There are now only twelve days to save the pound . . . This election is the last chance to save the pound . . . the pound is at stake in this election, this is what is at stake . . . we have eight days left to save the pound
LT: Of course, the campaign hasn’t just been about Europe. Mr Hague has been to a school.
[Shot of William Hague with two children playing a keyboard slightly tunelessly]
WILLIAM HAGUE: Great!
LT: It can’t have been that great though, because he hasn’t been to any others. He’s made one visit to a doctor’s surgery too. The Tory strategy has seemed to be largely about consolidating their core vote.
VOTER: William! William! William for Bristol!
LT: The Conservatives have worked out that if they can win back those disillusioned Tories who stayed at home last time, plus those who voted for the smaller anti-European parties, then they should retrieve a respectable number of seats from Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 147 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
This was based on the assumption that the Conservative campaign had been like Groundhog Day – and based on the pound. It pointed out that he had been to only one school and one hospital – though did not attempt to say where he had been, or what he had to say about other issues. It concluded that the Conservative’s ambitions were only to win back a “respectable number of seats” from their core vote.
The discussion on the following day’s front pages was between George Jones, of the Daily Telegraph and Jackie Ashley, of the New Statesman.
JEREMY PAXMAN: The front page of The Sun: ‘Don’t Let us Down, Tony’ – what do you make of this?
JACKIE ASHLEY: Well, I think it’s very interesting, I think we’re seeing signs of what’s going to come. The Sun, as you know, is extremely worried about the Euro. backed Tony for this election, but if you look inside to Trevor Kavanagh, the political editor’s piece, he’s saying the best thing about Labour has been Gordon Brown, and they’re very much praising Gordon Brown, and this is a sign of what’s to come – they think Gordon Brown is going to be much more Euro-sceptical than Tony Blair when it comes to that Euro referendum.
JP: And indeed, one of their columnists, George, Richard Littlejohn . . .
GEORGE JONES: . . . says if you don’t want a Labour landslide, hold your nose and vote Tories. And interestingly, it’s very kind of conditional, on probation support for Tony Blair. Here it says, ‘if you think Labour’s done okay, you vote Labour, but if you think Tony Blair has let you down, vote Tory’. So it’s not a wholehearted enthusiastic endorsement, and they do say here, quite menacingly, ‘we remain vehemently opposed to the Euro, but that is a fight for another day.’
JA: They promised to mortally wound Tony Blair and Gordon Brown haven’t they, last week.
GJ: The most dangerous man in Britain they said about him at one time.
[moves onto a discussion of the polls in George Jones’s Telegraph, and the Daily Mail’s decision not to lead on the election]
On the Independent
JP: The headline on this: ‘Tory leaders in waiting set our their credentials’ George, if anyone is getting calls from these guys now about what’s going to happen, it should be you. Are you?
GJ: Well, we know the pro-Europeans are about to come out on Friday, I mean they’ve buttoned their lips with a great deal of exasperation during this campaign – they’re going to criticise Tony Blair; but we are also hearing some people saying to William Hague, ‘you can’t just walk away of stage, go off to a cricket match in 1997 – you’ve got to stay there, somebody’s got to take the rap for this, you know and we’ve got to clear the mess up, as it were before you get straight into a leadership election’. So I don’t think it’s by any means certain.
JA: I think if the result is as bad as it looks as though it’s going to be, I think Hague will be gone on Friday morning.
JP: Who would want to lead the party then?
JA: Oh, I think you’ll find that Michael Portillo could just about bear it.
(laughter from Paxman)
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 148 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking______
Throughout, this assumed that the Conservatives were going to lose. It mentioned strongly that the Sun remained Euro-sceptic, and had columnists who were prepared to back Mr Hague, if only when holding their nose. There was mention again that the Europhile Tories would come out on Friday, this time from George Jones of the Telegraph,. .
.
Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 149 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com